Quashing of FIRs under inherent powers is exceptional, and only warranted when the complaint discloses no offence on its face.

Quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC is an exceptional remedy and must be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. At the threshold, the court should not assess evidence in detail or predict conviction; if the allegations, read as a whole, disclose the ingredients of an offence and support investigation, the matter should ordinarily proceed. Where the FIR itself lacks skeletal facts disclosing any offence, interference is permissible. The document notes a mixed result depending on whether each FIR, on its face, disclosed a cognizable offence or prima facie case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIRs under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the allegations and materials disclosed a possible offence. (ii) Whether the FIRs in the connected matters disclosed the commission of an offence so as to justify interference at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIRs under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the allegations and materials disclosed a possible offence.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is meant to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but not to short-circuit a legitimate prosecution. At the stage of quashing, the Court is not to undertake meticulous examination of evidence or decide whether conviction will ultimately follow. If the allegations, read as a whole, disclose the ingredients of an offence and there is material supporting investigation, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIRs in those matters where the allegations and supporting material disclosed a cognizable offence or a prima facie case.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIRs in the connected matters disclosed the commission of an offence so as to justify interference at the threshold.

Analysis: In some matters, there were statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor, which provided relevant material for investigation. In the remaining matters, the FIRs themselves did not disclose the commission of an offence unless something was added to or subtracted from the recitals. The FIR need not be encyclopedic, but it must at least contain skeletal facts showing an offence. Where that basic requirement is absent, interference under Section 482 is sustainable, though not necessarily for the same reasons adopted by the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed and partly dismissed according to whether the FIRs disclosed an offence on their face.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that quashing at the threshold is exceptional, but it is permissible where the FIR itself fails to disclose any offence; accordingly, the connected matters were disposed of on a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be used to quash criminal proceedings only in exceptional cases where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence or the proceedings amount to abuse of process.

---