High Courts Expected To Record Nature Of Crime And Allegations In FIR Quashing Orders : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently advised the High Courts to adopt a practice of mentioning the contents of the FIR and the nature of the allegations in the order so that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to have a fair idea about the proper application of mind at the High Court's end.

“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. The entire FIR may not be reproduced but at least when the matter travels up to the highest Court, then if something is observed in the impugned Order as regards the contents of the FIR, nature of the allegations, that would be helpful to understand whether there has been proper application of mind at the end of the High Court.”, the Court said.

The observation made by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice SVN Bhatti recently came in a matter arising out of an Allahabad High Court's Division Bench, where the High Court quashed the FIR against the accused persons, in an attempt to murder case and other connecting offences under the BNS, by merely noting that there was a 24 days delay in registering the First Information Report (“FIR”), without adverting to the contents of an FIR and the allegations contained therein.

Finding the impugned order to be erroneous, the Court said that “Delay is one of the factors which the Trial Court may take into consideration while appreciating the overall evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. Delay by itself without anything more cannot be a ground to quash the FIR.”

Further, taking notice of the fact that the High Court has not said a word or discussed anything insofar as the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR is concerned, the Court observed that “at the time of considering the case for quashing of the FIR, the High Court is expected to look into the nature of the crime, the nature of allegations levelled etc.”

“In other words, what is important for the High Court is to see whether the FIR discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not.”, the court said.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the FIR was restored to its number, with a liberty to the Police to proceed further in accordance with law.

Cause Title: PUSHPENDRA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Saroha, Adv. Mr. Arun Kanwa, Adv. Mr. Vikash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Dimpy Chillar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, Adv. Mr. Shishant, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Dev, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Rana, Adv. Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anugrah Singh, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Satya Kam Sharma, AOR Mr. Md. Atif, Adv.