On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Cabinet Minister Vijay Shah for making allegedly inflammatory remarks against Indian Army officer, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. Aghast at the Minister’s remarks, the Court directed the police to register an FIR against him for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which are related to acts endangering national unity and promoting enmity between groups.
Though a criminal case was registered against Mr. Shah on the same date at Raikunda village under the Manpur police station limits in Indore (Rural) district, the Court questioned the manner in which the FIR was written. It said that the FIR was “deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitute each of the specific offences” and could be “quashed on a later date”. The Court, therefore, not only directed the police to consider the entire order of May 14 to be read as part of the FIR for all processes, but also decided to monitor the probe so that the police act fairly in accordance with the law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures.
Essential ingredients
While the law relating to the quashing of an FIR is well settled, so is the law relating to the registration of a cognisable offence. Section 171(1) of the BNS states that “every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence”, if given orally, will be written, and if communicated electronically, will be taken on record by the officer in charge of a police station. So, information pertaining to commission of a cognisable offence must be written in the FIR.
It is common for the police to reproduce the main complaint in the FIR if the complaint is given in writing. Even in a case where preliminary enquiry is conducted into a complaint which does not contain elements of a cognisable offence, the original complaint is reproduced in the FIR along with result of the enquiry. Therefore, though such an FIR may run into pages, the essential elements of an offence are not missed out.
It is also prudent to write elements of the cognisable offence in the FIR, which form the basis for application of various sections of the law, because this gives the accused an opportunity to seek bail and apply for other protections under the law.
There are many instances where the FIR has been found wanting in the ingredients of a cognisable offence and as a result, relief was provided by the constitutional courts. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR holding that “all the offences set out in the FIR are not made out”. In Arnab Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra (2020), it granted bail to the appellant on the premise that “a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide”.
Quashing of an FIR
The law relating to the quashing of an FIR is well settled. It is intrinsically entwined with the law relating to the writing of an FIR. High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNS to quash an FIR, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
The Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), laid down certain guidelines on the circumstances where a High Court can exercise its inherent powers. The first two guidelines under which an FIR can be quashed are relevant to this case. The first guideline says the inherent powers to quash an FIR can be exercised “where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused”. As per the second guideline, an FIR can be quashed “where the allegations in the FIR and other material, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable 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) of the Code.” The Code refers to the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 155 pertains to a non-cognisable offence. Other situations include the allegations made in the FIR along with the evidence collected not disclosing the cognisable offence, the FIR disclosing only a non-cognisable offence, the allegations being absurd and inherently improbable, the offences with express legal bar given in the Code or the Act concerned, and criminal cases manifested with mala fide intentions.
In the case under consideration by the M.P. High Court, while referring to the links of the video of the Minister’s speech, the FIR states that the “full order dated 14.05.2025 is enclosed”. Thus, if the FIR is challenged for want of sufficient material disclosing commission of a cognisable offence, the enclosed order of the Court cannot be lost sight of. As per the settled law, the FIR can be quashed only if the Court finds the material deficit after considering the FIR and the enclosed material (the court order in this case) in its entirety.
Though it would have been prudent for the police to include relevant parts of the alleged speech which constitute offences mentioned in the FIR, the FIR if read in entirety, is not deficit in the required material. Therefore, the High Court’s harsh comments against the police seem unwarranted and premature.
Published – June 16, 2025 12:15 am IST