Quashing of FIR for delayed and vague allegations where essential offence ingredients were missing and abuse of process was apparent.

A delayed FIR lodged about 14 years after the alleged incidents, without any definite date or time, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Even on a face-value reading, the allegations were insufficient, and the surrounding circumstances, including multiple criminal cases and the manner of institution, placed the matter within recognised grounds for quashing: absence of an offence, inherent improbability, and malicious institution. The Court may examine attendant circumstances, not merely the bare allegations, to prevent abuse of process. The FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings were therefore quashed, and the challenge to the refusal to quash succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences and warranted quashing in exercise of inherent and writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The FIR was lodged after a delay of about 14 years from the alleged incidents and did not specify any definite date or time of occurrence. Even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out. The surrounding circumstances, including the manner of institution of the proceedings and the background of multiple criminal cases, brought the case within the recognised categories for quashing, namely where the allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or indicate malicious institution. In such a situation, the Court may look beyond the bare allegations and examine the attendant circumstances to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Conclusion: The FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the challenge to the refusal to quash succeeded.

---