The Supreme Court of India has recently issued significant advisories to High Courts regarding the practice of recording reasons in orders quashing First Information Reports (FIRs). This directive aims to ensure a meticulous application of judicial mind, thereby providing clarity and facilitating appellate review by the apex court.
Judicial Expectation: Detailing Crime and Allegations
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice SVN Bhatti emphasized that High Courts, when quashing FIRs, should explicitly mention the nature of the crime and the specific allegations contained within the FIR. The Court observed, "It is expected of the High Court to give a fair idea in its order as regards the contents of the FIR and what type of allegations have been levelled in the FIR." This practice, while not requiring the reproduction of the entire FIR, is deemed crucial for the Supreme Court to assess whether there has been a proper and thorough application of mind at the High Court level during such proceedings.
Delay as a Ground for Quashing: A Limited Consideration
The pronouncement arose from an appeal concerning an order by the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed an FIR against accused persons in an attempt to murder case, along with other connected offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The High Court's decision was based solely on a 24-day delay in registering the FIR, without delving into the substantive contents or allegations. The Supreme Court unequivocally held that "Delay by itself without anything more cannot be a ground to quash the FIR." It clarified that while delay might be a factor for the trial court to consider during evidence appreciation, it cannot be the sole basis for quashing an FIR at an anterior stage.
Ensuring Cognizable Offence Disclosure
The apex court reiterated the fundamental principle that at the stage of considering an FIR for quashing, the primary duty of the High Court is to ascertain whether the FIR discloses the commission of any cognizable offence. The failure of the Allahabad High Court to consider the nature of allegations led to the Supreme Court finding the impugned order erroneous. Consequently, the appeal filed by Pushpendra against the State of U.P. & Ors. was allowed, and the FIR was restored, granting liberty to the Police to proceed further in accordance with law. This judgment reinforces the imperative for High Courts to conduct a thorough examination of the factual matrix and alleged offences before exercising their inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.
