A prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence warrants allowing investigation to proceed.

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 997 of 2025, registered at H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2023

The prosecution alleged that, after the petitioner questioned the second respondent about an alleged relationship with the petitioner’s husband, a quarrel occurred and the petitioner and her husband assaulted the second respondent in a public place

The petitioner denied the allegations and sought quashing; the prosecution submitted that the investigation was almost complete and that only the final report remained to be filed

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, or could be quashed at the threshold

2. Whether the petitioner’s challenge justified the High Court’s interference with the ongoing investigation under Section 528 of the BNSS

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2023

Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, the Court stated that quashing is appropriate where the complaint discloses no offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive; courts should not assess at the threshold whether the material will ultimately secure a conviction

It also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principles that quashing is exceptional, an FIR need not contain every detail, and courts should ordinarily permit the police to complete an ongoing investigation where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner which, on a prima facie view, attracted the alleged offences and required investigation

Applying Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to determine the merits of the allegations or whether they would lead to conviction while the investigation remained underway. The fact that the investigation was nearly complete did not warrant quashing; the police were entitled to complete the investigation and submit the appropriate report

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed