Quashing of FIR for lack of prima facie offences where allegations were improbable, unsupported, and did not show cheating or forgery.

Inherent jurisdiction may be used to quash an FIR and investigation where the materials do not disclose a prima facie offence, the accusations are inherently improbable, or the proceedings appear mala fide. On the facts noted, the alleged confession and seizure material did not reliably support the prosecution version, and the contemporaneous sale transaction, reflected in income-tax records, made the case improbable. The allegations also did not establish cheating, conspiracy, forgery, use of a false document, or the offence under Section 294A. The criminal proceedings were therefore treated as unsustainable at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR and consequent investigation were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction for want of a prima facie case and for being manifestly improbable and mala fide; (ii) Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294A, 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR and consequent investigation were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction for want of a prima facie case and for being manifestly improbable and mala fide.

Analysis: The materials relied on by the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the foundational allegations. The alleged confession did not support the prosecution version to the extent asserted in the FIR, the seizure of money was not shown to be backed by legally reliable material connecting it to the alleged offences, and the surrounding circumstances, including the contemporaneous sale transaction and its reflection in income-tax returns, made the prosecution case appear improbable. The case also fell within the recognised categories warranting interference where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, the materials do not make out the offences alleged, the accusations are inherently improbable, and the proceedings appear to be attended with mala fides.

Conclusion: The FIR was liable to be quashed; the issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294A, 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The allegations did not disclose cheating, because there was no legally sustainable case of fraudulent or dishonest inducement causing delivery of property. The alleged sale transaction between the concerned parties, together with the reflection of the advance amount in income-tax records and acceptance by the tax authority, negatived the prosecution theory. The alleged use of non-judicial stamp papers to prepare the agreement did not, on the materials placed, amount to creation of a false document or forgery within the meaning of the Penal Code. The charge under Section 294A also remained unsupported by the materials, including the alleged failure to recover any lottery tickets in the house search and the overall improbability of the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out; the issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were held to be unsustainable in entirety and were terminated at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations and materials, taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the prosecution version is inherently improbable or mala fide, the inherent power may be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.

---