FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court

"The Court has examined the complaint independently of the de facto complainant’s subsequent statement. The allegations relate to a publication said to affect public order; its prosecution cannot be brought to an end merely because the complainant no longer wishes to pursue it." Calcutta High Court, in a judgment dated 9 October 2026, held that while a de facto complainant’s consent to quash an FIR is a relevant factor, the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, must be exercised upon an independent examination of the allegations to ensure that no cognizable offence is disclosed.

Justice Anuj Singh observed that "the same cannot be quashed merely on such concession of the de facto complainant," necessitating a judicial assessment of whether the complaint, taken at its face value, constitutes an offence under the law.

The petitioner, a journalist and host of the YouTube channel 'Arambagh TV', sought the quashing of an FIR registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The complaint alleged that a video broadcast by the petitioner contained false and misleading information regarding the functioning of a hospital, which the complainant claimed disrupted peace and harmony. During the pendency of the petition, the de facto complainant filed an application seeking impleadment, stating he had lodged the complaint under a misunderstanding and no longer wished to pursue the criminal proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 352 of the BNS. Additionally, the court addressed whether a criminal proceeding involving alleged public mischief could be quashed solely on the basis of a settlement or withdrawal of complaint by the de facto complainant.

Independent Judicial Scrutiny is Mandatory

The Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that the power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court emphasized that for offences impacting public order or the State, the court must look beyond the parties' settlement.

Court Finds Absence of Statutory Ingredients

Upon examining the complaint, the court found that the allegations failed to satisfy the requirements of the invoked sections. Regarding Section 340(2) BNS, the court noted that the complaint lacked any allegation of forgery or the fraudulent use of a document or electronic record as genuine.

Absence of Intent to Cause Public Mischief

The court further observed that for offences under Section 353 BNS, the complaint failed to identify any specific statement that intended to induce the public to commit an offence against the State or promote feelings of enmity between different communities. As the essential ingredients for Section 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) were also missing, the court held the proceedings untenable.

"This court finds that even if the allegations made in the letter of complaint are accepted in their entirety and believed to be true, no ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 340(2), 353(1)(b)(2) and Section 352 of the BNS are remotely found in FIR."

Abuse of Process of Law

The court concluded that the proceedings were manifestly malafide and instituted with ulterior motives. It noted that continuing such a prosecution, where the essential elements of the offences are absent, would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law, justifying the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

Final Order of Quashment

Finding that the continuation of the investigation served no legal purpose, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. The Court explicitly stated that this conclusion was based on the failure of the complaint to disclose any cognizable offence, independent of the de facto complainant’s desire to withdraw the case.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026