The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has refused to quash an FIR alleging assault, holding that where the allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence, the Court must refrain from interfering at the threshold and allow the investigation to proceed.
A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava was hearing a writ petition challenging an FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners contended that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature and that the FIR was lodged to give a criminal colour to a pending civil dispute.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court noted that the FIR specifically alleged a violent assault resulting in serious injuries, including a head injury, indicating the gravity of the incident. On a prima facie reading, the Bench held, the allegations clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation.
Placing reliance on a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, including Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 772, the Court reiterated that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of facts. At the stage of quashing, the Court is required only to examine whether the gravamen of allegations discloses a cognizable offence, and not to assess the correctness or sufficiency of evidence.
The Bench further emphasised that entertaining the petitioners’ defence particularly on the nature of injuries or the existence of a civil dispute would amount to conducting a “mini trial”, which is impermissible in proceedings seeking quashing of an FIR.
Reiterating settled law, the Court held that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose elements of a criminal offence. It also underscored that criminal investigation ought not to be “stifled at the threshold”, except in cases where no cognizable offence is made out.
Finding no ground for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the investigation to continue in accordance with law.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kirti Veer Singh, Abhishek Singh, Ravi Shanker Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Aman Thakur, Vineet Tripathi
