FIR quashing requires more than an inoperative prior report; pending criminal proceedings remained fit for trial.

An FIR could not be quashed merely because an earlier Archaeological Survey of India report had later been treated as inoperative between other parties. The earlier High Court order did not set aside that report; it only indicated it would not operate inter se those parties if a fresh report was made. The CBI was not a party to that proceeding, and the criminal case had already progressed through investigation, charge-sheet and framing of charges. The Court found that the challenge at that stage was not sustainable, leaving the trial court to decide the issues on evidence. The request to quash the FIR was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and the ensuing criminal proceedings could be quashed on the ground that the earlier report of the Archaeological Survey of India had been rendered redundant.

Analysis: The earlier High Court order did not set aside the original report; it only recorded that, between the parties to that proceeding, the earlier report would not be given effect to if a fresh report was made. The CBI was not a party to that proceeding, and the FIR had been registered on the basis of information then available, followed by investigation, charge-sheet and framing of charges. The challenge to the FIR at this stage was therefore not sustainable, especially when the criminal case was pending and the trial court remained competent to decide the questions on evidence.

Conclusion: The request to quash the FIR was rejected and the appellants' challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal FIR cannot be quashed merely because an earlier administrative report has later been treated as inoperative between other parties, particularly where that report was not set aside and the criminal proceedings have progressed to investigation and trial.

---