Quashing of criminal proceedings where FIR discloses no prima facie offence and later statements cannot cure missing allegations.

The Delhi HC held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash an FIR, proceedings and summoning order where the FIR or complaint, taken at face value, does not prima facie disclose the alleged offence against the accused. Here, the foundational allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners, and a later supplementary statement could not supply missing criminal allegations. On that basis, the FIR, the proceedings arising from it, and the summoning order qua the petitioners were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and the summoning order could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction when the FIR did not contain allegations constituting the offence against the petitioners and the subsequent supplementary statement alone was relied upon.

Analysis: The petition was under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising from it. The allegations in the FIR/complaint, read on their face, did not disclose any offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners. The supplementary statement could not be used to fasten criminal liability where the foundational complaint itself was devoid of such allegations. The case fell within the well-recognised category where the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence, and where the uncontroverted material does not disclose commission of any offence.

Conclusion: The FIR, the proceedings arising therefrom, and the summoning order qua the petitioners were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where the FIR or complaint, taken at face value, does not prima facie disclose the alleged offence against the accused.

---