Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Alleged Attack On Boutique Owner, Holding Lack Of Injury Alone Doesn’t Rule Out Attempt-To-Murder Allegation

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 205 of 2026, registered at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under Sections 3(5), 191(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR alleged that the petitioners and more than twelve unnamed persons attacked the complainant at her boutique, threatened her, and damaged goods and other property; it also stated that the complainant had video evidence of the incident.

The petitioners relied on a complaint made by petitioner No. 1 on the incident date, alleging an altercation initiated by the complainant and another person over a signboard.

The FIR was lodged two days after the incident.

The petitioners argued that the FIR was mala fide, delayed and carefully drafted, and that the absence of injury negated the allegation of attempted murder.

Section 528 BNSS confers inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the principles governing that power are reflected in the categories set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including cases where the FIR discloses no offence, its allegations are inherently improbable, or proceedings are manifestly mala fide.

The power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection; a quashing court must not assess evidentiary reliability or conduct a mini-trial (Bhajan Lal; Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P.; CBI v. Aryan Singh).

Under Section 109(1) BNS, injury is not an essential condition for the offence of attempt to murder; the relevant inquiry includes the accused’s intention and act, assessed in light of the circumstances, as explained in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana.

Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. permits closer scrutiny of surrounding circumstances where vexatious or retaliatory proceedings are alleged, but its application depends on the facts of the case.

The Court held that the FIR alleged an attack, threats and damage to property, and referred to video evidence; those allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed offences and warranted investigation.

The prior complaint by petitioner No. 1 indicated that an incident had occurred between the parties, but did not establish at the quashing stage which party was the aggressor; that question was left to the investigating officer.

The two-day delay and the petitioners’ claim that the FIR was drafted by an advocate did not, in the circumstances, establish mala fides.

The Court distinguished Mahmood Ali, noting, among other things, that the present FIR specified the date and time, followed a delay of only two days, and disclosed ingredients of offences.

Finally, because Section 109(1) BNS does not make injury indispensable to attempt to murder, the absence of injury did not justify quashing; intention and the accused’s acts were matters for assessment on the evidence at the appropriate stage.

It found that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the grounds raised did not justify exercising the inherent power to quash it.

The petition was dismissed, leaving the allegations to be investigated.