See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255727717

Quashing and Cancellation of FIR in India: A Study of Legislative and Judicial

Trends

Article · March 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 25,087

1 author:

Dr Raj Kumar Yadav

Baba Mast Nath University, Haryana
38 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Habitual Offenders and the Law View project

National Seminar on “Criminal Law Reforms in Recent Times” on February 11, 2017 (Saturday) Organized by Faculty of Law Jagan Nath University, NCR, Haryana View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Raj Kumar Yadav on 19 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 QUASHING AND CANCELLATION OF FIR IN INDIA: A STUDY OF
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL TRENDS

Dr. Raj Kumar Yadav

Assistant Professor,

Coordinator, Legal Aid Clinic

Smt. Shanti Devi Law College, Saharanwas,

Rewari, Haryana

(Affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Approved by Bar Council of India)

E-mail: researchfir@gmail.com

Ph.-+91-9541351631(M)

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2015715

 QUASHING AND CANCELLATION OF FIR IN INDIA: A STUDY OF
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL TRENDS

†
Dr. Raj Kumar

INTRODUCTION
Supreme Court and High court has power to quash a FIR which is frivolous in
nature and there is no need to pursue the case necessarily against the alleged person. The
Apex court has to quash a FIR very cautiously and sparingly and has to see many reasons
in the case for quashing an FIR. Inherent Powers are in Sec. 482 this section is to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In Nikhil Merchant V. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.1 the Apex court
held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or a
FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.PC does not limit or affect the power of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code. In Manoj Sharma V. State & Ors.2 the Apex Court
held that Where continuing with the proceeding would be a futility, quashing of FIR should
not be refused.

QUASHING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

Quashment is also used for the phrase quashing of FIR. In certain cases if court find
that it is not necessary to pursue the case further is needed court quash the proceedings and
stop the frivolous proceedings. These Powers are imbibed in Section 482 of the code of
Criminal Procedure. Section 482 is corresponding to section 151 of Civil Procedure Code,
and proceeds to the same principles.

†
Assistant Professor, Ph.D.(Law), Smt. Shanti Devi Law College, Saharanwas, Rewari,
Haryana, India, E-mail: researchfir@gmail.com See also research paper on the topic “First
Information Report in India: A Study of Legislative and Judicial Trends” have been published in
the Maharshi Dayanand University Research Journal (Law) Vol. XIV, Part-II, 2009, Pages 175-
186.
1
2008(3) CRIMES 377 (SC) at page 378.
2
2008(4) CRIMES 359 (SC) at page 360.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2015715

 In Surendra Kumar Bhatia V. Kanhiya Lal & Ors.3 the honorable Supreme Court
decided that quashing of FIR in the instant case is proper. The complaint by the
members of the society was in regard to the 20 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 9 in regard
to which late Chauthmal is alleged to have agreed to sell to the society under agreements
dated 11.8.1980 and 24.11.1988. The members of the society gave a complaint to the
Board claiming that the compensation payable (or 15% developed land in lieu of
compensation) in respect of the said 20 bighas of land, had to be given to the society and
not persons claiming to be legal heirs of Chauthmal. It was also their contention that on
account of collusion among the successor of Chauthmal and his attorney holder, the Special
Officer of the Board, and the office bearers of the society, the 15% developed land was
allotted to persons who were not entitled to allotment, thereby defrauding the society and
the Board. The respondents 1 and 2 approached the High Court pointing out that neither the
society nor the members of the society, at any point of time had made any claim in regard
to the 13 bighas in Khasra No. 9, which belonged to first respondent, that the entire
complaint related to 20 bighas agreed to be sold by Chauthmal to the society, and that as
there was no complaint of irregularity or commission of any offence in regard to the 13
bighas of land belonging to the first respondent, there was no question of involvement of
first respondent or his attorney holder (second respondent) in any offence of cheating or
forgery. It is not in dispute that even the suit filed by the society, that was said to be
pending at the relevant time was against Chauthmal in regard to the 20 bighas in Khasra
No. 9 and that no suit or proceeding was pending in regard to the remaining 13 bighas
claimed by the first respondent. Only in January, 2003, second respondent and some others
were impleaded in the said suit relating to 20 bighas, in pursuance of an application field
on 14.11.2002, long after respondents 1 and 2 had executed the agreement and consent
award had been made. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that the allegations in the
FIR, even if accepted as true, did not relate to the respondents 1 and 2 but to others who
had claimed to be the owners/attorney holders in regard to remaining 20 bighas of land.
In K. Ashoka V. N.L. Chandrashekar & Ors.4 the honorable Supreme Court
decided about quashing of proceedings that the opinion of the High Court that the
3
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1961 page 1965.

4
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3288 page 3293.

3
averments made in the complaint petition are imaginary is not based on any material. Even
assuming that the complainant had a score to settle against the accused, the same by itself
may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings particularly in view of the
fact that at least a prima facie case has been established in view of the report of the
Registrar.
Section 109 of the Act provides for commission of offences under the said Act.
Therein, no statutory embargo has been placed for a court to take cognizance of an offence
under the provisions of IPC. If the allegations made in the complaint petition or in the first
information report make out a case under the IPC, section 111 of the Act, to which our
attention has been drawn, would constitute no bar for maintenance thereof being applicable
only in respect of offences committed under the said Act. The said statutory interdict
therefore cannot be extended in regard to commission of an offence under any other Act.
In Rishi Anand and another V. Govt. Of NCT Delhi and Others5 the honorable
Supreme Court decided that Criminal proceedings against accused liable to be quashed. In
this case on a perusal of the complaint, we find no allegations much less of specific nature
even to remotely connect the first appellant with the alleged offence under Section 406. It
is not the case of the informant that any of her articles were entrusted to him at the time of
marriage. There is no dispute that he went back to USA after a brief stay immediately after
the marriage. Learned counsel for the first respondent has, however maintained that this
appellant is residing with his brother in Fairfax, USA and he was a privy to the acts of
harassment and suffering caused to his client. Our attention has been invited to the
following statement in para 8 of the FIR :-
“From January 1996, Accused No. 4, in criminal conspiracy with Accused No. 4
started misbehaving with the complainant by abusing her, criminally intimidating, kicking
and throwing her belongings and repeatedly demanding car for their use in India, flat and
other expensive items in dowry befitting the status of their family in India.
In para 9, it is alleged that the complainant was beaten mercilessly by Accused Nos.
1, 3 and 4 and was insulted and humiliated. These alleged acts which took place beyond the
territory of India, even if assumed to be correct, does not make out a case to proceed
against the first appellant for an offence under Section 406 IPC. The High Court, in

5
AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1531 page 1532.

4
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings against the 1st appellant.

QUASHING OF FIR- HIGH COURT’S POWER

The High Court has power to quash the FIR in Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. in the interest of
justice. In Alpic Finance Ltd. V. P. Sadasivan and another.6the honorable Supreme
Court decided that In this case in para 6 the case of State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal 7 a
question came up for consideration as to whether quashing of the FIR filed against the
respondent-Bhajan lal for the offences under Sections 161 and 165 of IPC and Section 5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act was proper and legal. Reversing the order passed by
the High Court, this Court explained the circumstances under which such power could be
exercised. Apart from reiterating the earlier norms laid down by this Court, it was further
explained that such power could be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. However this court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill 8, held
that “at the stage of quashing FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the
allegations made therein.”
In State of A.P. V. Vangaveeti Nagaiah9 the honorable Supreme Court decided
that In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between
a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial
Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppressions, or, needless
6
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1226 para 6.
7
1992 Supp(I) SCC 335;1992 AIR SCW 237:AIR 1992 SC 604:1992 Cri.LJ527.
8
(1995) 6 SSC 194: 1995 AIR SCW 4100: AIR 1996 Sc 309: 1996 Cri LJ 381).
9
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2646 para 6.

5
harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should
take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass
any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an
accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of
exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the Categories of cases where the
High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail
by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,10 the Apex Court held that the High
Court may in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
or under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing FIR or complaint during the stage of
investigation to secure ends of justice.11
In State of A.P. V. Bajjoori Kanthaiah & Anr.12 the honorable Supreme Court
decided that In the instant case, the FIR was filed by Prohibition and Excise Officers for
commission of offences punishable under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995. Alleging that the accused was either transporting or
storing black jaggery/molasses for the purpose of manufacturing illicit distilled liquor or
was an abettor so far as the offence of manufacturing illicit liquor was concerned. There
was either statements of witnesses or seizure of black jaggery and olum materials being
used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor. The FIR was quashed by High Court.
Held that, the older u/s 482 quashing the FIR was not sustainable. Whether the
material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for
holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At
the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made
out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that
stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is
based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed. If there are materials
10
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
11
See also Research Paper on the topic “First Information Report in India: A Study of
Legislative and Judicial Trends” have been published in the Maharshi Dayanand University
Research Journal (Law) Vol. XIV, Part-II, 2009, Page 184.
12
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 671.

6
showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so,
the interference at the threshold with the FIR is to be in very exceptional
circumstances. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material.
Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused
persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not
disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing
the FIR in the concerned cases. In State OF A.P. V. Aravapally Venkanna & Anr.13 the
honorable Supreme Court decided that Whether the material already in existence or to be
collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused
persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it
can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an
offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be
gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or
circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility
about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at
the threshold with the FIR is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in RP
Kapur v. State of Punjab.14
According to A.P. High Court in Pearl Beaverages Ltd., New Delhi v. State of
A.P.,15 it was held that “The question as to whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code can quash the first information report itself is integrally and
inexorably intertwined with the jurisdiction and power of the police officer to investigate
into commission of a cognizable offence. Catena of decisions is referred by the learned
senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and as well by the learned Public
Prosecutor. The distinction in law between the powers of the Court to take cognizance of a
13
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1863 page 1866.
14
AIR 1960 SC 866.
15
2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 32 A.P.

7
case and their powers of inquiry and trial on the one hand and the powers of a police officer
to investigate into a case relating to commission of a cognizable offence on the other hand
are too well recognized. It has been observed by higher Courts that function of the judiciary
and the police are complementary not overlapping. It has been clearly held that the Court’s
functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then.

Status of Informant in quashing of FIR

In Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others,16 it was held that “Where an accused
seeks quashing of FIR regarding the cognizable offence by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Informant should be made a party would be afforded an opportunity of hearing before
passing final order.
After lodging FIR the informant’s right to pursue investigation or to know the result
of such investigation is not lost. He is right and locus to pursue the investigation by police,
upon his information given U/S. 154 of the code so that the offence is lawfully investigated
and culprit is brought to book for being tried to punish by the competent court. Thus, where
final report submitted U/S. 173 of the code and comes before the Magistrate for
consideration, he is bound to issue notice and give opportunity of hearing to the informant.
Besides U/S. 2(2) of 301 of the Code the informant or any private person can instruct a
pleader for prosecution of any person in any court under the direction of Public prosecutor
and can also file written submissions after the evidence is closed with the permission of the
court. Again, in the event of acquittal, the informant can approach the State Government
for final appeal against the acquittal and can himself file revision against the order of
acquittal. Thus the informant would be vitally affected if FIR quashed should be afforded
an opportunity to defend it by rebutting his prayer for its quashing.
In the case of Bhagawanth Singh v. Commissioner of Police,17 the Apex Court
has taken the view that when a Magistrate upon submission of the report under sub-sec. (2)
(i) 173, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding on the
view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons

16
2000 Crl. L.J. 569 (All).
17
AIR 1985 SC 1285; 1985 Cr. LJ 1521.

8
mentioned in the FIR, he must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity
to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.
There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made
by the Officer-in-charge in the police station under sub-sec. (2)(i) of Sec. 173, the
Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the
informant must be given an opportunity or being heard so that he can make his submissions
to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are,
accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded
under sub-sec. (2)(i) of Sec. 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop
the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against
some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give
notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of
consideration of the Report.

FIR can not be quashed on the grounds that police station did not have territorial
jurisdiction to investigate the offence It is illegal and erroneous to say, that part, S.
156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be questioned on
the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely
overlooked the said embargo when it entertained the case mentioned below on the ground
of want of territorial jurisdiction.

Ordinary Place of Inquiry and Trial (Section-177 of Cr. P.C.)

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed. In Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar V. State Of
Maharashtra & Anr.18 the honorable Supreme Court decided that The territorial
jurisdiction of a Court with regard to criminal offence would be decided on the basis of
place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed
and the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to
decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of
jurisdiction of another Court. The venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by
18
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1792.

9
the averments contained in the complaint or charge sheet. S. 177 of Cr. P.C. provides that
every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

Sec. 178 of Criminal Procedure Code Place of Inquiry or trial:−

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) Where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local
areas than one, or
(d) Where it consists of the several acts done in different local areas, it may be
inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Hence, in the present case, the High court committed grave error in accepting the
contention of the respondent that Investigating Officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the
matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Police Station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the
function of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material
collected by an Investigating Officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a
conclusion that Police Station Officer of particular Police Station would not have
Territorial Jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of S. 178(c) of the Cr.
P.C. when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or
where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be
inquired into or tried by a court having Jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore,
to say at the stage of investigation that S.H.O. Police Station, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That part,
S. 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on
the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely
overlooked the said embargo when it entertained the petition of respondent No. 2 on the
ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.”

Decisions of the Supreme Court and Principles on Quashing of FIR/ Complaint

during the investigation and inquiry

10
 In Kishan Lal V. Dharamendra Banfna & Anr.19the honorable Supreme Court
decided that In investigation interference by court will be made in exceptionable
situations. The Investigating Officer when an FIR is lodged in respect of a cognizable
offence, upon completion of the investigation would file a police report. The power of
investigation is a statutory one and ordinarily and save and except some exceptional
situations, no interference therewith by any court is permissible.
In Ganesh Gogoi V. State of Assam20 the honorable Supreme Court decided that
The FIR was recorded by the P.W.7 in this case “during investigation”. However in the
course of his evidence P.W.7 never stated anything about the appellant being a member of
the United Liberation Front of Assam. In the FIR it has clearly been stated “that
investigation has already been taken up by me. The certified copy of G.D.E. No. 19 is
enclosed herewith.”
It is clear from the aforesaid statement, investigation in the case had already
commenced and once investigation commences the FIR is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
and no value can be attached to the same.
Rupan Deol Bajaj, Senior lady I.A.S. Officer lodged a complaint against K.P.S.
Gill, Senior Police Officer of Punjab on 29-7-1988 alleging the commission of offence
U/S. 341, 342, 352, 354 and 509 I.P.C. On that basis, a case was registered by the Central
Police Station and investigation was taken up. A private complaint was also filed by her
husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on the same allegations on 16-
12-1988. The accused moved the High Court for quashing of FIR and the complaint under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court passed an interim order staying the investigation into
the FIR on 29-7-88. The High Court quashed the FIR and the complaint pending before the
Court and the order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court laid down that the power
of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare cases.

19
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2932.
20
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2955.

11
 That the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint
at the stage of investigation.
In the instant case, the sequence of events culminating in slapping on the posterior
of a woman at a public function disclosed in FIR amounted prima facie offence under
section 354 IPC. Accordingly, the High Court was wrong in quashing the FIR and the
complaint at the stage of investigation. Relying on previous Supreme Court decision in
“State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,”21 the Apex Court has laid down the following
guidelines for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or
inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by High Court in quashing FIR or complaint
during the stage of investigation:
(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by Police Officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) Cr. P.C;
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused;
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;

21
AIR 1992 SC 604, see also First Information Report (F.I.R.)- by Rajender Mangari, Asia
Law House, Hyderabad, 2nd Edition 2005-2006, p. 118-119.

12
 (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
(viii) The allegations in the complaint constitute a cognizable offence justifying a
registration of case and investigation thereon and do not fall in any of the
categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extra-ordinary
powers or inherent powers quashing of FIR would not be justified.

High Court is empowered to Quash FIR

High Court is empowered to quash a FIR or even subject to limitations and

conditions made down by Supreme Court in various judgments. Full Bench of A.P. High
Court in between Girish Sarvate v. State of A.P. and another,22 held at U/S. 482 cr. P.C.
the High Court has the power to quash a FIR or even a complaint subject to limitations and
conditions laid down by Supreme Court in various Judgments. It need not wait for
completion of investigation and taking cognizance of by the Magistrate. There is no dispute
that this power has to be exercised by the High Courts very sparingly with circumspection
and also in rarest of rare cases. Though there are limitations on exercise of power by the
High Court, yet that would not in any way suggest that High Court lacks the power.

CANCELLATION OF FIR
Officer-in-charge of a Police Station cannot cancel the FIR. SHO has no power to
cancel the FIR. Even after investigation discloses that no offence has been committed.
After completion of his investigation, he has to forward the police report as required U/S.
22
2005 Criminal Law Journal 729.

13
 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the approval of the Magistrate. If it is accepted by the Magistrate, it is
deemed that FIR is cancelled. If it is not accepted by the Magistrate it can be understood
that it is not cancelled. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for the
cancellation of FIR. Sometimes, the Police Officer after investigation of the case feels that
no case is made out against the accused or that the evidence is dearth (deficient) and he
releases the accused on personal bond or on surety according to Sec. 169 Criminal
Procedure Code. While sending the accused, the Police Officer recommends for the
cancellation of the FIR. If Magistrate feels that no case is made out against the accused, he
may drop the proceedings. When Magistrate drops the proceedings, it can be understood
that the FIR is cancelled.

REVIEW

FIR is liable to be quashed when it is found that there is no use when fact of the
case demands that court has to use its inherent powers for delivery of real justice. In
present scenario many frivolous FIR’s are filed against a person who is totally innocent.
Many alike FIR’s are filed and there is no use to continue the same proceeding based on
the FIR. Many insurance cases are also filed in the same series by the persons for getting
undue benefits and to exasperate vexatiously.

------ o ------

14

View publication stats