Quashing of FIR for non-disclosure of offence and mala fide prosecution where allegations were inherently improbable.

An FIR can be quashed where, even on a face-value reading, the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the criminal process appears inherently improbable or mala fide. The Court noted an unexplained delay of about two years, absence of basic particulars such as the date and time of the incident, and a civil contractual backdrop, and applied the settled quashing principles covering non-disclosure of an offence, improbability, and vindictive prosecution. On that basis, the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings were held liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and whether the case fell within the recognised grounds for quashing of criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of dacoity or the other offences invoked. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about two years, without specifying the date and time of the alleged incident, and the dispute appeared to arise out of a civil contractual background. The Court applied the settled principles governing quashing, including the categories where the allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or disclose mala fide and vindictive prosecution. On the materials placed, the case was treated as falling within those categories.

Conclusion: The FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the challenge to the refusal of quashing succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations in an FIR, taken at their highest, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the proceeding appears to be inherently improbable or maliciously instituted, the criminal process can be quashed as an abuse of process.

---