SC Overturns HC Decision, Quashes FIR No. 0007 of 2023, Citing Abuse of Process and Lack of Offence Disclosure

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC's decision, and quashed the criminal proceedings related to FIR No. 0007 of 2023. The SC determined that the FIR did not disclose any offences under the relevant sections of the IPC and was an abuse of the process of law. The SC noted the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of specific details, rendering the allegations improbable and fabricated. The Court emphasized preventing judicial process abuse and clarified that its observations pertained solely to this FIR, without impacting other pending cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the FIR No. 0007 of 2023 discloses the commission of any offence.
2. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR.
3. Whether the allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Summary:

Issue 1: FIR Disclosure of Offence
The Court examined whether the FIR No. 0007 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 395, 386, 365, 342, and 506 of the IPC, disclosed any offence. The FIR alleged that the complainant's company completed construction work for Glocal University but was not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 1.20 crore. It also claimed that construction materials worth Rs. 1.86 crore were retained by the accused. The FIR further alleged that in 2021, the complainant was threatened and robbed by the accused when he demanded his dues. The Court found that even if the allegations were accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC were made out. Similarly, the offences under Sections 365, 342, and 506 IPC were not disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR, leading the Court to conclude that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law.

Issue 2: High Court's Refusal to Quash the FIR
The High Court had declined to quash the FIR, stating that it disclosed a cognizable offence and referred to the legal precedents in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra. The High Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court failed to consider that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of two years without specifying the date and time of the alleged incident, which made the allegations appear concocted and fabricated.

Issue 3: Inherently Improbable Allegations and Abuse of Process
The Court referred to the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case for quashing an FIR. It noted that the case fell within parameters 1, 5, and 7, which include situations where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are absurd and inherently improbable, or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The Court emphasized the duty to look into the FIR with care and consider the overall circumstances, including the registration of multiple FIRs against the appellant, which indicated a pattern of harassment and vendetta. The Court also cited the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 0007 of 2023. The Court clarified that the observations made in this judgment were relevant only for the FIR in question and would not affect any other pending criminal prosecutions or proceedings.

---