Maintainability through constituted attorney upheld, and FIR quashing refused where the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence.

A revisional application under Section 482 CrPC filed through a constituted attorney was held maintainable because the applicable Appellate Side Rules allowed an application to be signed and dated by the applicant, declarant or advocate, and no contrary rule of the Court displaced that position. The challenge to the FIR and criminal proceeding also failed because the complaint disclosed materials indicating a cognizable offence; the Court held that investigation was necessary, FIR registration was mandatory once such offence was disclosed, and the truth or probability of the allegations could not be tested at the quashing stage. Inherent powers were therefore not exercised, and the proceeding was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed through a constituted attorney was maintainable; (ii) whether the criminal proceeding and FIR arising from the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and called for quashing.

Issue (i): whether a revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed through a constituted attorney was maintainable

Analysis: The relevant Appellate Side Rules permitted an application to be signed and dated by the applicant or declarant or his advocate. On that basis, the filing through the petitioner's authorised agent was treated as valid. The objection founded on contrary views of other High Courts was not accepted in the absence of any contrary rule of this Court.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the application was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the criminal proceeding and FIR arising from the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and called for quashing

Analysis: The complaint alleged that blank cheques and title deeds were handed over in connection with loan facilities, that one cheque was later filled up for a higher amount after the death of one of the drawers, and that the demand under the SARFAESI notice and the cheque dishonour proceedings reflected variance. The Court held that these materials disclosed a cognizable offence and that investigation was necessary to ascertain the role of the petitioner and others. It applied the principle that where the information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry is required. It also held that the stage of quashing did not warrant testing the truthfulness or probability of the allegations, and that the case did not fall within the exceptional category for interference under inherent powers.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected because the proceeding was found to disclose a cognizable offence fit for investigation.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the criminal proceeding was allowed to continue, with no adjudication made on the merits of the allegations before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: When a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, investigation should ordinarily proceed and inherent powers to quash ought not to be exercised unless the case falls within the exceptional categories warranting interference at the threshold.

---