Scrutiny of FIRs Based on Ulterior Motives for Personal Vengeance

Editorial correction — 16 October 2026. The former note misdated Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v State of Uttar Pradesh as 24 August 2023; the official judgment is dated 8 August 2023. It also presented “ulterior motive” and multiple FIRs too close to stand-alone grounds for quashing. This replacement states the fact-sensitive test and the current BNSS/CrPC transition.

Jurisdiction and scope: All-India High Court practice for seeking quashing of an FIR or criminal proceeding as malicious or vexatious. For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the inherent-power provision is section 528; for saved proceedings, section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may remain relevant under BNSS section 531. Article 226 jurisdiction is separate.

Law checked: 16 October 2026.

Short answer

Mala fides do not automatically extinguish an FIR that otherwise discloses an offence. The petition should anchor itself in a recognised quashing category: no offence on the allegations taken at face value, absence of cognizable material, inherent improbability, a legal bar, or a proceeding manifestly attended by mala fides and maliciously instituted for vengeance. Salib permits close attention to attending circumstances and investigation material in an appropriate frivolous or vexatious case, but expressly confined its observations to that FIR.

When to use this workflow

Use it after fixing the registration date, procedural code, investigation stage, offences and relief. It is not a substitute for discharge, bail, trial or an evidence contest that requires disputed facts to be tested.

Numbered workflow

1. Fix the governing procedural code. Record the FIR and proceeding dates. BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. Read section 531 before choosing BNSS section 528 or referring to saved CrPC procedure; do not mechanically relabel an older proceeding.
2. Identify the correct jurisdiction and remedy. Explain why the chosen High Court has territorial jurisdiction and whether relief is sought under section 528 BNSS, section 482 CrPC, Article 226, or a properly framed combination. State precisely whether the target is the FIR, a charge-sheet, cognizance order or the entire proceeding.
3. Map every alleged offence. Put each statutory ingredient in a table against the FIR allegations and undisputed accompanying material. In Salib, the Court examined the ingredients of intimidation, witness-threatening and extortion; it did not quash merely because vengeance was alleged.
4. Select the recognised quashing category. Link the facts to the relevant Bhajan Lal category reproduced in Salib. Avoid a petition that says only “false,” “politically motivated” or “civil dispute.” Motive strengthens a legally cognizable ground; it is not evidence-free immunity from investigation.
5. Separate undisputed context from a trial defence. Use public records, prior FIRs, orders, timing, demonstrable contradictions and investigation material that the High Court may properly consider. Do not invite a mini-trial on contested witness credibility or rely on unauthenticated private material.
6. Explain the complete chronology. Set out the underlying dispute, earlier proceedings, alleged incident, FIR, addition of offences or accused, statements, investigation steps and challenged order. Salib treated multiple FIRs as important only in the surrounding factual pattern.
7. Address stage and prejudice. State what has occurred in investigation and why the recognised defect can be decided without trial. Disclose parallel bail, discharge, protest, revision or writ proceedings and any interim orders.
8. Frame narrow interim relief. If coercive action or filing of a final report is imminent, seek relief tied to the petition and explain urgency. Do not state that filing a quashing petition itself stays investigation or arrest.
9. Protect against overbreadth. If only one accused or offence is unsupported, ask whether severable relief is appropriate. Salib quashed the proceeding only as against the appellant and said its observations should not affect other prosecutions.
10. Prepare for the alternative route. Calendar bail, discharge and limitation-sensitive remedies. A refusal to quash does not decide guilt, and a petition should not omit immediate liberty protection merely because inherent jurisdiction is invoked.

Petition checklist

• Certified or authenticated FIR and translated copy where required
• Charge-sheet, cognizance order and investigation papers presently relied on
• Ingredient-by-ingredient offence chart
• Chronology of prior complaints, litigation and alleged retaliation
• BNSS section 531 transition note
• Territorial-jurisdiction and maintainability note
• Disclosure of connected proceedings and interim orders
• Narrow prayer identifying accused, FIR and proceeding

Common errors

• Treating alleged vengeance as an automatic quashing rule.
• Using multiple FIRs as proof of falsity without context.
• Asking the High Court to decide disputed evidence as at trial.
• Citing section 482 CrPC without addressing the BNSS transition.
• Misstating Salib as a 24 August 2023 judgment.

Official sources

Automated-research disclosure: This note was reconstructed through automated review of the official Supreme Court judgment, BNSS text and commencement notification. The record and the High Court’s current filing rules remain controlling.

Next review: 16 January 2027.