FIR quashing under Article 226 requires hearing the informant, State response, and only rare interim arrest protection.

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an FIR, the informant has a continuing legal interest and is a necessary party, so final relief should not be granted without hearing him. Where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and extraordinary writ jurisdiction is invoked, notice to the State and a counter-affidavit from the investigating agency are ordinarily required so the Court can assess prima facie material and relevant facts. The text also states that stay of arrest may arise only as rare interim protection; a bare ex parte order staying arrest without hearing the informant and police is not treated as the correct legal position.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the informant of the first information report is a necessary party and entitled to hearing before a writ petition seeking quashing of the first information report is finally decided; (ii) whether notice and counter-affidavit of the State investigating agency are required before final orders are passed in such a writ petition; (iii) whether, in a case where the first information report discloses a cognizable offence, the High Court can grant stay of arrest and whether the earlier ex parte order or the contrary view states the correct law.

Issue (i): whether the informant of the first information report is a necessary party and entitled to hearing before a writ petition seeking quashing of the first information report is finally decided

Analysis: The scheme of the Code shows that the informant does not lose all interest after lodging the first information report. The provisions relating to registration of information, investigation, communication of action taken, and the right to challenge inaction or refusal to investigate indicate a continuing legal interest in the outcome of the process. The informant may be vitally affected if the first information report is quashed at the instance of the accused. The principle that a person likely to be adversely affected by a judicial order should be heard also supports impleadment.

Conclusion: The informant is a necessary party and must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before final order is passed.

Issue (ii): whether notice and counter-affidavit of the State investigating agency are required before final orders are passed in such a writ petition

Analysis: The Court examined the procedural rules governing writ petitions and held that while the Court may in an appropriate case dispose of a matter at an early stage, where the challenge concerns a first information report disclosing a cognizable offence and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is invoked, the investigating agency may be required to place the relevant facts before the Court. A counter-affidavit enables the Court to know whether any prima facie material has been collected and whether any relevant facts have been suppressed. The power to decide at the first hearing does not dispense with the need for a proper factual response where the case demands it.

Conclusion: Notice to the State and an affidavit in reply from the investigating agency are required where the petition prima facie calls for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): whether, in a case where the first information report discloses a cognizable offence, the High Court can grant stay of arrest and whether the earlier ex parte order or the contrary view states the correct law

Analysis: The Court applied the settled limits on interference with investigation and arrest. It reiterated that quashing of proceedings is justified only in exceptional cases where no offence is disclosed or where other recognized grounds exist. At the same time, the Court recognized that arrest is not to be made mechanically and that, in rare and exceptional cases, a writ of mandamus may restrain misuse of police power. However, the Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to grant interim relief as the sole and final relief. On this reasoning, a bare ex parte order staying arrest without hearing the informant and the investigating agency could not be treated as laying down the correct law.

Conclusion: The view permitting stay of arrest only as exceptional interim protection is correct, and the earlier ex parte order did not lay down the correct law.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the petitioners on all the substantive questions, and the matter was directed to proceed before the Division Bench in light of those answers.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of a first information report, the informant is a necessary party and the Court should not finally adjudicate the matter without hearing him and obtaining the State's factual response where the petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction against a cognizable offence.

---