FIR quashing refused where allegations disclosed cognizable offences, but interim protection from arrest was granted during investigation.

An FIR alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act was not quashed in writ jurisdiction because the allegations were found sufficient to disclose cognizable offences, and delay or asserted falsity did not justify interference at the threshold. The Court directed that investigation should continue, but protected the petitioners from arrest until submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to cooperation in the investigation. The writ petition therefore failed, while limited interim relief was granted during the pendency of investigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act deserved to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners sought quashing on the grounds of delay and alleged falsity of the accusations. The allegations in the FIR were, however, found sufficient to disclose cognizable offences, and the Court was not persuaded to interfere at the threshold. At the same time, in view of the facts and circumstances, the Court directed that investigation should continue while protecting the petitioners from arrest until submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to cooperation in investigation.

Conclusion: The FIR was not quashed and the writ petition failed, though interim protection from arrest was granted during investigation.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of by declining to interfere with the FIR and permitting investigation to proceed with limited protective relief to the petitioners.

---