#FIR Quashing

The Delhi High Court held that an unverified internal police database report, marked for investigative reference only, cannot prove criminal involvement. It directed the DCP to verify and correct the erroneous entry linking the petitioner to an FIR where he was unnamed within four weeks, and barred reliance on the report in court.

The court held that Section 498A IPC presupposes a valid marriage; where the complainant's prior marriage remained undissolved at the time of the second marriage, the latter is void ab initio, rendering Section 498A inapplicable. Vague allegations and evidence of ulterior motive further justified quashing the FIR against the mother-in-law under Section 482 CrPC. The ruling clarifies that cruelty provisions cannot be invoked to police relationships lacking legal marital status.

Gujarat HC quashed FIR against POA holders, ruling vague allegations lacking specific criminal intent amount to abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC. It shields parties in property deals from baseless prosecutions and stresses need for concrete allegations.

The court held that mobile phone accessories are functional commercial hardware, not 'artistic works' eligible for copyright protection, quashing an FIR filed under the Copyright Act. It further ruled that police searches for trademark violations require prior Registrar opinion and a DSP-rank officer under the Trade Marks Act, rendering the search and seizure procedurally invalid. The decision clarifies the copyright-trademark boundary and enforces statutory safeguards against misuse of criminal IP enforcement.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the FIR, ruling that the accused cannot be charged under Section 85 of the BNS Act because they are neither the husband nor a blood, marital or adoptive relative of the complainant’s husband. This narrows liability under the Act to immediate family members.

Supreme Court dismisses writ petition seeking quashing of multiple cyber fraud FIRs across states, reiterating Article 32 jurisdiction is extraordinary and mandates proof of fundamental rights violation. The ruling underscores the high threshold for invoking constitutional remedies against FIRs.

Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR in a petroleum theft case after BPCL confirmed seals were intact, allowing retention of 1050 litres under the Petroleum Control Order. The court relied on prior precedent permitting retention of up to 2500 litres per individual, negating allegations of tampering.

The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that where an FIR discloses a prima facie case of forgery and fraud in educational qualifications, the investigation must proceed without interference - even if the accused claims prior verification. This upholds the principle that courts cannot prematurely shut down probes merely because the accused was appointed through allegedly forged documents, preserving the integrity of criminal investigations under Section 482 CrPC.

Himachal Pradesh High Court invokes inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and SC/ST Act after parties compromise, reinforcing that non-heinous offences can be settled amicably without trial. The ruling clarifies the scope of compromise in criminal cases involving caste-based allegations and electoral threats.

Karnataka High Court dismisses petition to quash FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ruling that mere civil disputes or familial antecedents cannot override the requirement for the FIR to disclose skeletal features of offences. The court emphasizes that if allegations prima facie establish ingredients of criminal offences, quashing is unwarranted, reinforcing the threshold for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Allahabad High Court quashes FIR under Section 137(2) BNS after parties settle matrimonial alliance, holding victim's consent and age above 18 years negate offence.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that even in non-compoundable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a genuine, voluntary compromise between parties justifies quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. This reinforces judicial discretion to prioritize settlement over mechanical prosecution, impacting victims, accused, and prosecutors in serious criminal matters where reconciliation is feasible.

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an NDPS FIR but granted the accused 60 days of protection from arrest, conditioning it on his mandatory appearance before the trial court to seek bail. This reinforces that procedural safeguards can coexist with the seriousness of drug offenses, offering a narrow window for accused persons to secure bail without triggering immediate detention.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that courts cannot grant interim stay on arrest or quash FIRs merely on allegations of false implication while investigations are ongoing. This reinforces the Bhajan Lal doctrine: investigative integrity takes precedence over pre-trial judicial intervention unless there is clear abuse of process or no prima facie case. Criminal accused and investigating agencies alike must now treat this as a strict boundary on pre-trial relief.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that live-in relationships between consenting adults fall under the right to privacy, quashing an FIR under Section 87 BNS. The ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedent, protecting couples from familial or societal interference without legal basis.