In a strong message to investigating authorities, the Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR registered against a man who, shockingly, appeared both as the complainant and accused in the same case. The Court was hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, and observed that continuing such flawed proceedings would amount to a "clear abuse of process." Importantly, the Court noted, “investigation was carried out in absence of permission under Section 155(2) CrPC and without correcting the foundational error in the FIR.”
The bizarre case arose after an FIR was filed with the Gandhigram Police Station in Rajkot. Though the petitioner’s name appeared as the complainant in the FIR, he was later named as an accused in the charge sheet, without any formal correction in records. Police proceeded with the investigation and even filed a charge sheet based on the same flawed FIR, without obtaining mandatory sanction for probing non-cognizable offences.
The petitioner highlighted this blatant inconsistency, arguing that the FIR was factually contradictory and legally unsustainable. It was stressed that no permission was sought under Section 155(2) of CrPC before investigating a non-cognizable offence, rendering the entire process void. The APP conceded that there had indeed been a mistake in filing the FIR online, but acknowledged that no corrective action was ever taken by the police.
The High Court came down heavily on the lapses committed by the police, stating, “To continue such proceeding would be nothing but abuse of process of law. The FIR shows the petitioner as complainant, yet the charge sheet prosecutes him as accused, an error never corrected and compounded by lack of statutory sanction.”
Citing precedents from CBI v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that when allegations are absurd or investigation is mala fide or procedurally flawed, courts must step in to prevent injustice. It reminded that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) must be exercised to secure the ends of justice, especially when prosecution appears manifestly unjust.
Finding the proceedings entirely unjustified, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential actions. The ruling reaffirmed that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities, they are fundamental to fair investigation and justice.
Picture Source :
