Supreme Court: High Courts Can Quash FIRs Even at Nascent Stage
Last Updated on April 2, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh
The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts can quash FIRs even at an early stage if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, calling it an abuse of the legal process.
Gujarat Police filed an FIR against Pratapgarhi for an Instagram post featuring a poem, alleging it promoted enmity under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that the investigation was at a nascent stage.
The Supreme Court held that no absolute rule prevents High Courts from quashing an FIR at an early stage. If the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence, the High Court must intervene to prevent misuse of law. The Court criticized the Gujarat High Court for failing to do so.
The Court ruled that mens rea (criminal intent) must be present under Section 196 of BNS. It found no such intent in Pratapgarhi’s case. The FIR appeared mechanical and “bordered on perversity.” The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which lists instances where FIRs can be quashed, such as when allegations are absurd, improbable, or filed with mala fide intent.
The Supreme Court rejected the Gujarat High Court’s reliance on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, clarifying that no blanket rule stops High Courts from quashing FIRs at a nascent stage. The Court ruled that the FIR violated Pratapgarhi’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It set aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment and quashed the FIR.
