A prima facie-supported POCSO prosecution cannot be quashed on disputed delay or counterblast claims.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of an FIR alleging offences under Section 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7, 8, 11(1), 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act, together with the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings

The alleged incident occurred on 12 March 2026. The 14-year-old prosecutrix alleged that the applicant intercepted her, caught her hand, and asked her to go to his house; the FIR was registered on 17 April 2026

The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed and an afterthought or counterblast to proceedings he had initiated against the complainant’s family. He had earlier withdrawn a Special Criminal Application after the charge-sheet was filed and summons issued, and then filed the present application

The prosecution relied on the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 BNSS and statements of other witnesses, and explained the delay by reference to a family death, travel, and an earlier complaint made on 17 March 2026

1. Whether the applicant’s present quashing application was barred because he had withdrawn an earlier application seeking similar relief

2. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the prosecution, despite the alleged delay and claim that the FIR was a counterblast

Section 528 BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the Court considered the request to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings under that provision

At the quashing stage, where the materials—including the prosecutrix’s statement and witness statements—make out a prima facie case, the Court should not assess credibility or reject the prosecution case on disputed questions such as delay, interested witnesses, or alleged retaliatory motive; those matters are for consideration at trial

The Court considered Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1948, in connection with the applicant’s submission about Article 226 proceedings after cognizance, and distinguished Ahmad Ali Quraishi v. State of Uttar Pradesh on its facts

The prosecutrix’s Section 183 BNSS statement described the alleged incident, and the Court noted that another witness said the prosecutrix came home crying and promptly recounted that the applicant had caught her hand and asked her to go with him. Other witnesses were also said to support the prosecution case; their alleged interest did not justify discarding their statements at this stage

The delay was explained by the family’s travel following a death and the grandfather’s complaint to police on 17 March 2026; whether the delay undermined the prosecution was a matter for trial

Given this prima facie material, the Court declined to treat the FIR as an afterthought or counterblast. It distinguished Ahmad Ali Quraishi because that case involved a complaint registered after a Section 156(3) CrPC application had been dismissed and subsequent intervention by the National Human Rights Commission

The Court did not rest its decision on a separate determination of the successive-application objection

The FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings were not quashed, and the prosecution was left to proceed to trial