Prima facie cognizable offences bar FIR quashing, while limited interim protection from arrest may still be granted during investigation.

An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences will not ordinarily be quashed in writ jurisdiction, as there is no basis to interdict the investigation at that stage; the request to quash the FIR was therefore rejected. However, on the facts presented, limited interim protection from arrest was considered appropriate to preserve the petitioner's liberty during investigation, so long as he cooperated with the investigating agency and appeared when required. The protection was to continue until submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR alleging offences under the penal law deserved to be quashed, and whether the petitioner was entitled to protection from arrest during investigation.

Analysis: The FIR disclosed, at least prima facie, cognizable offences, and no cogent ground was made out at the stage of writ jurisdiction to interdict the investigation by quashing the FIR. At the same time, on the facts placed before the Court, limited protection was considered appropriate so that the petitioner was not arrested until submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provided that he cooperated with the investigation and appeared when required.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the FIR was rejected, but the petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest till submission of the police report, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not quash an FIR where it discloses prima facie cognizable offences, though limited interim protection may be granted on the facts without stalling the investigation.

---