Supreme Court of India· 19 August 2026

While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash an FIR, what is the Court concerned with, and can the FIR's allegations be tested against a competing version at that stage?

PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 887 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3931 OF 2026
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; N.V. Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

The Court is concerned only with whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence; it does not, at that stage, embark upon an enquiry into the correctness, reliability or probative value of the material relied upon by either side, as that is a matter for investigation and trial.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 154, 156(3), 190, 202, 482 — quashing of FIR — res judicata in criminal proceedings — res judicata — rejection of Section 156(3) application not a bar to subsequent FIR — Held: An order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC is confined to directing or declining to direct investigation and involves no adjudication on the merits; being a threshold order, its rejection cannot attract res judicata so as to bar a subsequent FIR founded on the same or substantially similar allegations, and the Police's independent statutory duty under Section 154 continues unaffected. (¶38-39, 42-43) Section 156(3) is pre-cognizance, Section 202 is post-cognizance — Held further: The jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage as a direction to the police to investigate, while Section 202 operates at the post-cognizance stage to assist the Magistrate in proceedings already instituted upon a complaint. (¶27, 29) res judicata in criminal proceedings — decisive consideration is finality of the earlier adjudication — Held further: Res judicata applies in criminal proceedings in principle, but only where the earlier proceeding culminated in a final adjudication on the merits; an order at the threshold, without adjudication on the merits, does not attract the doctrine. (¶34-37) Section 482 — face-value test — Held further: At the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482, the Court is concerned only with whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence, and does not examine the correctness or reliability of the material relied upon by either side. (¶47-48)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 47It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the Court is concerned only with whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. At that stage, the Court does not embark upon an enquiry into the correctness, reliability or probative value of the material relied upon by either side. This principle stands authoritatively settled in Bhajan Lal (supra) and has been consistently reaffirmed, in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd (supra). In the present case, the FIR alleges that the appellant induced the informant to part with substantial sums of money on the representation that he could secure public employment for the informant's son and grandson, received such amounts in his bank account, furnished forged admit cards and examination results in furtherance of the deception, and thereafter threatened the informant when repayment was demanded. We are also conscious of the fact that the record indicates that the appellant is arraigned in five FIR’s with substantially similar allegations. These allegations, if accepted at their face value, unquestionably disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation.

Paragraph 48The various submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding the true nature of the monetary transactions, the police report obtained in the earlier proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, and the evidentiary worth of the audio recordings, bank transactions, admit cards and other documents, are all matters falling within the domain of appreciation of evidence in a trial. At this stage, Court cannot undertake an examination of such material or determine which of the rival versions is more probable.

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Penal Code, 1860Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does rejection of an application under Section 156(3) bar subsequent registration of an FIR founded on the same or substantially similar allegations, by operation of res judicata?Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what is the distinction between the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and under Section 202?Does the doctrine of res judicata apply in criminal proceedings, and what determines whether it applies to a given prior order?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections