Prison contraband and attempted communication rules supported refusal to quash FIR and proceedings at the framing stage.

Carrying a mobile phone and charger into jail premises was treated as potentially falling within the Prisons Act, 1894 because the prohibition extends beyond mere introduction of forbidden articles to communication or attempted communication with a prisoner contrary to jail rules. A petition under inherent powers sought quashing of the FIR and later proceedings, but the court found no exceptional ground for interference, particularly after charges had already been framed. On the facts stated, the alleged concealment of the articles supported the view that they were intended to facilitate communication with a prisoner, so the FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers on the ground that carrying a mobile phone and charger into jail did not amount to an offence under the Prisons Act, 1894.

Analysis: The petition sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The alleged recovery was of a mobile phone hidden in the petitioner's turban and a charger hidden in his shoe while he was entering jail premises. Section 42 of the Prisons Act, 1894 penalises not only the introduction or removal of prohibited articles but also communication or attempted communication with a prisoner contrary to the relevant rules. On the facts, the articles appeared to have been carried to facilitate communication with a prisoner. Charges had already been framed, and no exceptional ground was shown to justify interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the merits shown and no ground for interference was made out; the FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed.

---