Quashing of FIR by an unaccused person was declined during investigation, but limited protection against coercive action was granted.

An FIR against unknown persons was not quashed at the behest of a person who had appeared pursuant to notice but had not yet been arrayed as an accused, because the investigation was still ongoing. The Court declined to entertain quashing on merits at the threshold, but granted limited protection by directing prior notice before any proceeding was taken against the petitioner and restraining coercive action for the stipulated period. The ruling reflects that a pre-accusation challenge to an FIR will ordinarily not succeed during a live investigation, though interim safeguards may be issued to protect the individual's immediate interests.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first information report should be quashed at the instance of a person not yet arrayed as an accused, and whether limited protection against coercive action was warranted while the investigation remained in progress.

Analysis: The petition was directed against an FIR registered against unknown persons and certain officers, while the investigation was still ongoing. The petitioner had appeared pursuant to notice and had not yet been shown as an accused. In those circumstances, the request to quash the FIR on merits was not entertained at the threshold. At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate to protect the petitioner from immediate coercive action and to require prior notice before any proceeding was taken against him.

Conclusion: The FIR was not quashed, but the petitioner was granted limited protection by directing the Investigating Officer to give prior notice and not to take coercive steps for the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: An FIR against unknown persons will not ordinarily be quashed at the behest of a person not yet arrayed as an accused while investigation is still underway, though limited protective directions may be issued to safeguard that person's immediate interests.

---