Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Neelam Nitin Sampat, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 2436 of 2023 registered at Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3, PSI Priyanka Kadam, against the petitioner alleging certain offences. The petitioner contended that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and that the allegations were vague and baseless. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the police officers, opposed the petition. The court examined the contents of the FIR and the relevant legal provisions. It observed that the FIR must disclose all ingredients of the alleged offence. Upon scrutiny, the court found that the FIR lacked essential elements and did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - FIR Quashing - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - The court examined whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. Held that where the FIR does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the High Court may quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Non-Disclosure of Offence - Ingredients of Offence - The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. Held that mere registration of FIR without a prima facie case is not sustainable. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and whether the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. FIR No. 2436 of 2023 registered at Tardeo Police Station quashed.
Law Points
- FIR quashing
- abuse of process of law
- prima facie case
- non-disclosure of cognizable offence
- inherent powers of High Court
