Allegations involving disputed facts and cognizable offences cannot be quashed under Section 528 BNSS without trial.

The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') seeking quashing of FIR No. 0586/2025 registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh for offences under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC.

Petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) met through a matrimonial website in March 2022, where she introduced herself as 'Anjali', an MBA graduate; they married on 21.11.2022 according to Maithili Hindu rites.

The petitioners alleged that respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home on 07.01.2023, underwent medical termination of pregnancy on 16.01.2023 without the husband's consent.

Identity documents revealed her name as 'Baby Jha' and petitioners alleged discovering electronic communications indicating her association with one Deepak Jha before and during the marriage.

Respondent no.2 finally left the matrimonial home in November 2023.

Petitioner no.1 thereafter issued a legal notice dated 05.06.2024 seeking resumption of matrimonial life, filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 297 of 2024 before the Allahabad High Court, lodged complaints with the police, and instituted a criminal complaint dated 19.12.2024 before the CJM, Rohini Courts.

Subsequently, FIR No. 586/2025 was registered at respondent no.2's instance, which the petitioners alleged was a counterblast to their legal proceedings.

The petitioners contended the marriage subsisted barely one year with only about 70 days of cohabitation, that the entire family was falsely implicated, and that the allegations were vague and an afterthought lodged one-and-a-half years after separation.

1. Whether FIR No. 0586/2025 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether contentions regarding the FIR being a counterblast, delayed, vague, and amounting to false implication of the petitioner's family could be adjudicated at the quashing stage without the parties leading evidence.

Section 528 of the BNSS (the inherent powers provision) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the context of offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), and 34 (common intention) IPC.

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that where the allegations in the FIR disclose disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, the Court would ordinarily refrain from quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.

At the quashing stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the factual matrix or embark upon a "mini trial"; an FIR can be quashed only where it discloses no cognizable offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court found that the petitioners' core contentions—that the marriage subsisted briefly, that the complaint was delayed and motivated as a counterblast to the legal notice, habeas corpus petition, and criminal complaint filed by petitioner no.1, and that the family was falsely implicated through omnibus allegations—were "essentially factual in nature" and could only be adjudicated after both parties led evidence before the Trial Court.

The Court declined to conduct a mini trial on the defence material and documents relied upon by the petitioners, holding they were matters for trial.

On a bare reading, the impugned FIR contained allegations of cruelty, harassment, and misappropriation of articles against the petitioners, which disclosed the commission of cognizable offences; thus, it could not be said at the threshold that continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Since disputed questions of fact arose, the Court, exercising restraint consistent with the sparing use of inherent jurisdiction, refused to interfere.

Finding no ground for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court dismissed the petition; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.