The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the doctrine that an FIR registered with mala fide intent, unsupported by credible evidence and left unrebutted by the State, is liable to be quashed under Article 226. This ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny over abuse of criminal process, particularly where civil disputes are weaponized through criminal complaints.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Nishat Fatma and two others, seek quashing of an FIR dated 04.03.2025 registered at Police Station Puramufti, District Prayagraj, under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 4, who alleges that the petitioners committed criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of Rs. 79,000 paid by petitioner no. 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Facts
Petitioner no. 1 made a payment of Rs. 79,000 to respondent no. 4 during the COVID-19 period, reportedly as an advance or loan
Respondent no. 4 failed to return the amount despite repeated requests
Instead of pursuing civil remedies, respondent no. 4 filed an FIR on 04.03.2025 alleging criminal offences under BNS
Petitioners contend the allegations are fabricated to coerce repayment of a purely civil debt
CCTV footage referenced by petitioners shows only ingress and egress of persons, with no evidence of wrongdoing
Petitioners assert they are relatives of the first informant, making the allegations implausible and retaliatory
Procedural History
04.03.2025: FIR No. 35 of 2025 registered under BNS Sections 331(4) and 305
20.07.2025: Writ Petition No. 15616 of 2025 filed before the Allahabad High Court
30.07.2025: Court issued interim order: (i) notice issued to respondents 1 to 3; (ii) notice directed to respondent no. 4; (iii) counter affidavits to be filed within three weeks; (iv) no coercive action permitted until next hearing or submission of police report
22.04.2026: Court directed office to report on service of notice to respondent no. 4; case listed for 29.04.2026; interim order continued
23.04.2026: Office report submitted confirming notice to respondent no. 4 was sent by registered post on 12.09.2025; no acknowledgment or return receipt received; service deemed sufficient
29.04.2026: No counter affidavit filed by any respondent, including respondent no. 4
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 35 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings, including any investigation or arrest, on grounds of mala fide, abuse of process, and absence of prima facie criminality.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an FIR registered in a purely civil dispute, without any credible evidence of criminal intent and in the absence of any counter affidavit from the State or complainant, can survive judicial scrutiny under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that the transaction was a civil loan or advance, not a criminal misappropriation. The payment was made during the pandemic for legitimate purposes, and the failure to repay does not attract criminal liability under BNS Sections 331(4) or 305. The FIR was filed after repeated civil demands were ignored, indicating retaliatory intent. CCTV footage, though limited, showed no suspicious activity. The petitioners are relatives of the complainant, making the allegation inherently improbable. No counter affidavit was filed to rebut these assertions.
For the Respondent
No counter affidavit or written submission was filed by any respondent, including the State or respondent no. 4. The State did not contest the petition on merits, nor did it produce any material to substantiate the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the petition in light of the well-established principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing of an FIR where it is manifestly mala fide, devoid of any prima facie criminality, or used as a tool of oppression. The Court noted that the petitioners have made specific, plausible assertions regarding the civil nature of the transaction and the retaliatory motive behind the FIR. Crucially, the State and the complainant failed to file any counter affidavit to rebut these claims, despite being granted ample opportunity.
"Where no counter affidavit is filed to controvert the averments in the writ petition, and the allegations in the FIR are patently civil in nature, the Court is justified in quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of process."
The Court emphasized that the absence of a counter affidavit is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive failure to discharge the burden of justifying the initiation of criminal proceedings. The Court further observed that Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS require proof of dishonest intention at the time of appropriation, which is entirely absent in a case of unpaid civil debt without any evidence of fraudulent intent or concealment.
The Court also noted that the complainant’s failure to produce any documentary evidence, witness statements, or corroborative material further undermines the credibility of the FIR.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The FIR No. 35 of 2025 registered under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Puramufti, District Prayagraj, is hereby quashed. All consequential proceedings, including investigation, arrest, or coercive action against the petitioners, are permanently stayed. The Court directs the police to expunge all records relating to the impugned FIR from their system within four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mala Fide FIRs Cannot Survive Without Counter Affidavits
Practitioners must immediately move to quash FIRs in civil disputes where the State fails to file a counter affidavit
Courts will treat non-filing of counter affidavit as admission of the petitioner’s averments
This creates a strong procedural advantage for petitioners in Article 226 petitions challenging criminal complaints
Civil Debts Do Not Automatically Become Criminal Offences
Merely failing to repay a loan or advance does not constitute criminal misappropriation under BNS Sections 331(4) or 305
Prosecution requires proof of dishonest intention at the time of receipt or appropriation
Petitioners should highlight absence of fraudulent conduct, lack of concealment, and prior civil correspondence
Judicial Scrutiny of FIRs Is a Remedy, Not an Exception
Bhajan Lal is not a last resort but a proactive safeguard against abuse of criminal process
Courts are empowered to intervene at the FIR stage when the allegations are inherently civil and unsupported
Lawyers should routinely cite Bhajan Lal in writ petitions challenging FIRs in financial disputes
