Background of the Case
- On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Police to register an FIR against Cabinet Minister Vijay Shah.
- Allegation: He made inflammatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, an Army officer.
- The FIR invoked Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relate to:
- Acts endangering national unity,
- Promoting enmity between groups.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary ,Governance)
Court’s Concerns
- Though an FIR was registered the same day, the High Court criticized it for being deficient in material particulars.
- Concern: FIR lacked specific details of the alleged actions that would constitute each offence.
- The Court feared that such an FIR could be quashed later due to vagueness.
Judicial Response
- The Court:
- Directed that the entire court order of May 14 be treated as part of the FIR.
- Stated its intent to monitor the investigation to ensure fairness and impartiality.
Essentials of FIR Writing
- As per Section 171(1) of BNS, any information on a cognisable offence must be written and recorded properly.
- Best practice: Include the elements of the offence in the FIR to:
- Justify the legal sections applied.
- Allow the accused to seek bail or other remedies.
- Often, the original written complaint is copied into the FIR in entirety, especially after a preliminary inquiry.
Examples of FIR Quashing
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021): SC quashed FIR as no offence was made out.
- Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020): Bail granted; SC held FIR lacked prima facie ingredients for abetment of suicide.
Principles for Quashing FIR (Bhajan Lal Guidelines, 1992)
- FIR can be quashed if:
- Allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence.
- Allegations do not disclose a cognisable offence under Section 156(1) (investigation without magistrate’s permission).
- FIR is absurd, improbable, or has mala fide intentions.
Application to Current Case
- FIR includes the High Court’s full order, which details the speech and context.
- If challenged, this order becomes part of the FIR, bolstering its legal standing.
- The police should have included excerpts from the minister’s speech, but omission isn’t fatal.
Author’s Critique
- Though FIR drafting could’ve been better, police acted within legal norms.
- High Court’s harsh remarks against the police were unwarranted and premature.
- Monitoring the investigation is welcome, but overreaching criticism undermines procedural fairness.
Conclusion
- The case underscores the importance of:
- Proper FIR drafting,
- Judicial restraint,
- Adherence to procedural justice,
- And the balancing of free speech vs public order.
