An FIR cannot be quashed at the nascent investigation stage where its allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 145/2026, registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, Kanker, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that five persons, posing as tantriks, induced him to pay ₹4,10,000 by claiming they could retrieve buried gold and warning that a family member would die if it was not recovered; the amount was allegedly not returned.

The petitioners asserted that they were falsely implicated, referred to another FIR alleging similar fraud, and claimed that respondents 6–8 had prior enmity with them.

The State opposed quashing, noting the nature of the allegations and that the investigation was at an early stage.

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold when its allegations disclose a cognizable offence and the investigation is at a nascent stage

2. Whether the petitioners’ claim of false implication arising from alleged prior enmity provides sufficient ground to quash the FIR before investigation

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Applying the principles stated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court held that a quashing court must ordinarily assess whether the FIR’s allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not determine their merits, and should allow the police to investigate.

Quashing or staying investigation is reserved for exceptional cases, having regard to the parameters in R.P. Kapur and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and the High Court should be slow to interfere at the initial stage.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the FIR alleged a similar pattern of offences involving persons said to have come from Yavatmal, Maharashtra, and that the investigation remained at an early stage.

In light of Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to conduct a roving or fishing inquiry or to determine the truth of the allegations before the investigating agency had an opportunity to do so.

The asserted prior enmity and false implication could not, without further examination of relevant material, justify quashing the FIR at that stage.