Quashing threshold and territorial jurisdiction objections failed where FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offences.

At the quashing stage, the HC held that FIR allegations of forged documents, collusion in NCLT proceedings, and disclosure of confidential company information disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, so the truthfulness of those claims could not be tested then and investigation had to continue. The objection that the Berhampore police station lacked territorial jurisdiction was rejected because territorial limits do not, by themselves, justify quashing where the complaint discloses multi-jurisdictional elements. Allegations of mala fides were also found insufficient to stop the proceeding when cognizable offences were otherwise made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the FIR and connected criminal proceeding disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioners so as to warrant quashing; (ii) whether the proceeding was liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Berhampore police station; and (iii) whether the proceeding was vitiated by mala fides.

Issue (i): whether the FIR and connected criminal proceeding disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioners so as to warrant quashing

Analysis: The allegations concerned a forged special power of attorney, alleged collusion in filing proceedings before the NCLT, use of allegedly forged documents, and sharing of confidential company information. The petitioners disputed their role, but the Court held that at the stage of quashing it could not assess the truthfulness, reliability, or ultimate proof of those allegations. The FIR was not to be treated as an encyclopedia, and the materials disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation.

Conclusion: The allegation of cognizable offences was held to be sufficient at the investigation stage, and quashing on merits was refused.

Issue (ii): whether the proceeding was liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Berhampore police station

Analysis: The complaint itself indicated multi-jurisdictional elements and the Court relied on the settled principle that investigation is not to be stifled merely because some or all acts may have occurred outside the territorial limits of the concerned police station. Reference was made to the statutory scheme under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the principle that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not, by itself, a ground to quash an FIR at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge based on territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the proceeding was vitiated by mala fides

Analysis: The Court held that, even if allegations of personal animus or forum selection were raised, such assertions could not by themselves justify quashing when the FIR disclosed material suggesting cognizable offences. Mala fides of the informant were treated as secondary to the material to be collected in investigation.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides did not justify quashing of the proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The Court found the matter unsuitable for quashing at the threshold and permitted the investigation to continue to its logical end.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of quashing, the Court must accept the FIR allegations at face value and interfere only where they are inherently absurd, wholly improbable, or disclose no cognizable offence; territorial-jurisdiction objections and allegations of mala fides do not, by themselves, warrant quashing when prima facie offences are disclosed.

---