Quashing of FIR at a premature stage refused where cognizable allegations and ongoing investigation disclosed criminality despite civil proceedings.

Gujarat HC reiterated that inherent or writ jurisdiction should not be used to quash an FIR or stop investigation at a premature stage where the complaint discloses cognizable allegations of forged and fabricated documents. The Court held that a prosecution should not be stifled before relevant material is collected, and that the existence of parallel civil proceedings or allegations of mala fides does not by itself justify interference with the criminal process. It also found no concrete material showing illegality, bias, or irregularity to warrant transfer of investigation to a higher authority. The criminal process was therefore permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the First Information Report and the investigation could be quashed at the threshold in exercise of inherent and writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the dispute being connected with civil proceedings and allegations of mala fides justified interference with the criminal process; (iii) Whether the investigation should be transferred to a higher investigating authority.

Issue (i): Whether the First Information Report and the investigation could be quashed at the threshold in exercise of inherent and writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The allegations concerned forged and fabricated documents, including an alleged power of attorney, and the investigation had not yet been completed. The governing principle applied was that inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the Court should not stifle a legitimate prosecution or enter into a merits-based assessment before the material is collected. The complaint, on its face, disclosed accusations of cognizable offences and required investigation.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the First Information Report and terminate the investigation at the threshold was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute being connected with civil proceedings and allegations of mala fides justified interference with the criminal process.

Analysis: The existence of civil litigation did not by itself negate the criminal allegations, because a transaction may give rise to both civil and criminal consequences. Allegations of mala fides were treated as secondary at the stage of registration and investigation. The Court found that the defence materials were not of such sterling quality as to rule out the accusations without evidence, and the pending civil disputes did not warrant quashing the criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: The contention that the matter was purely civil and that the complaint was mala fide was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the investigation should be transferred to a higher investigating authority.

Analysis: The request was made at a very early stage when little or no effective investigation had occurred. No concrete material showing illegality, bias, or irregularity in the ongoing investigation was shown. The request was therefore premature and unsupported by sufficient grounds.

Conclusion: The prayer for transfer of investigation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal process was permitted to continue, and all petitions seeking quashing or transfer of investigation were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should not be used to halt an ongoing investigation where the complaint discloses cognizable allegations, especially at a premature stage and merely because parallel civil proceedings exist or mala fides are alleged.

---