By Shailendra Singh & Co.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has recently clarified the scope of a High Court’s power to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) at nascent stages of investigation. In the landmark judgment of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat , the Court has reaffirmed that there is no absolute rule preventing High Courts from exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or its equivalent Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even when an investigation is at its preliminary stage.

The Judgment: Key Observations

A Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the power to quash FIRs at any stage is an essential safeguard against the abuse of legal process. The Court categorically stated:

“There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS.”

This pronouncement is significant as it reinforces the protective jurisdiction of High Courts when allegations, even when taken at face value, fail to disclose any prima facie offence.

The Pratapgarhi Case: Facts and Findings

The judgment arose from an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi for an Instagram post featuring a poem. The FIR invoked Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Supreme Court found that:

1. No criminal intent (mens rea) could be attributed to Pratapgarhi
2. The registration of the FIR appeared to be a “mechanical exercise”
3. The action “virtually borders on perversity”
4. The High Court had failed to intervene when it should have “nipped the mischief at the threshold”

Differentiating from Neeharika Infrastructure

The Gujarat High Court had relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which suggested limited scrutiny by High Courts during the early stages of investigation. However, the Supreme Court clarified that no “blanket restriction” exists on the High Court’s powers to intervene at a nascent stage.

The Court held:

“There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage. If such embargo is taken as an absolute rule, it will substantially curtail the powers of the High Court which have been laid down and recognised by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.”

The Bhajan Lal Principles

The judgment reaffirms the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outlined several categories where quashing of FIR is appropriate:

1. When allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute an offence
2. When allegations don’t disclose a cognizable offence
3. When allegations don’t disclose commission of any offence
4. When allegations constitute a non-cognizable offence requiring magisterial direction
5. When allegations are inherently improbable or absurd
6. When express legal bars prevent proceedings
7. When proceedings are motivated by malice or personal vendettas

Legal Implications for Criminal Practice

This judgment has several important implications for criminal law practitioners:

1. Enhanced Protection Against Process Abuse: The judgment strengthens the protective jurisdiction of High Courts against frivolous or malicious criminal proceedings.
2. Emphasis on Prima Facie Assessment: Courts must conduct a meaningful prima facie assessment of allegations rather than mechanically allowing investigations to proceed.
3. Balance with Investigative Powers: While respecting investigative agencies’ domain, courts are reminded of their duty to prevent abuse of process.
4. Constitutional Rights Protection: The judgment reinforces protection of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Conclusion

The Imran Pratapgarhi judgment represents a significant development in criminal jurisprudence, reaffirming the High Courts’ power to quash FIRs at nascent stages when allegations fail to disclose prima facie offenses. It serves as a crucial check against mechanical registration of FIRs and reinforces the judiciary’s role in preventing abuse of criminal process.

This balanced approach ensures that legitimate investigations proceed while protecting citizens from unnecessary harassment through the criminal justice system.

---

Disclaimer

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on our understanding of the recent Supreme Court judgment. Laws and their interpretations may change over time, and specific legal issues require individualized attention. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Shailendra Singh & Co. disclaims any liability arising from the use of this information.