Allegations disclosing a cognizable offence warrant investigation; merits cannot be assessed at the quashing stage.

The petitioner, the sole accused, sought to quash a private complaint in PCR No. 4297/2026, the Magistrate’s order dated 2 July 2026, and the consequential FIR.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 316, 318, 336, 338, 340 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from the formation of a second trust bearing the same name as an existing trust and the alleged operation by the petitioner and others of the first trust’s bank account.

The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that the complaint and investigation were an abuse of process. The second respondent maintained that the first trust had not been dissolved or taken over and that the alleged use of its bank account required investigation.

1. Whether the complaint and consequential proceedings should be quashed where the allegations concern the creation of a second trust with the same name and the alleged operation of the first trust’s bank account.

2. Whether the alleged civil nature of the dispute justified quashing the proceedings before investigation.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged offences were under Sections 316, 318, 336, 338, 340 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, the Court stated that, when considering a request to quash, it must examine whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence; it need not assess the merits of the allegations and should permit the investigating agency to investigate.

The complaint alleged that the first trust remained in existence, that a second trust with the same name had been formed, and that the first trust’s bank account was being operated by members of the second trust, including the petitioner.

The Court considered these allegations sufficient to require investigation and held that the matter could not be quashed at that stage. Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to determine the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s defence before investigation.

It clarified that its observations were not expressions on the merits of either the defence or the complaint, and kept all contentions open.