An FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold when specific allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence.

The FIR in Crime No. 749 of 2019 alleged that the petitioner received ₹4,50,000 from the defacto complainant on the promise of securing employment in Singapore, but neither obtained the job nor repaid the money.

The police registered the case under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 BNSS, asserting that he was innocent; the prosecution submitted that the investigation was almost complete and only the final report remained to be filed.

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, or should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

2. Whether the Court should interfere with the investigation while it remained in progress.

Section 528 BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

At the FIR stage, quashing is exceptional: the Court considers whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and ordinarily does not assess the evidence, determine whether it will secure a conviction, or prematurely evaluate the merits while investigation is ongoing.

The Court relied on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, for the principle that proceedings should not be stifled where the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence, even if the dispute appears civil in nature.

It also relied on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which states that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage, an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, and investigation should generally be allowed to proceed.

The FIR specifically alleged that the petitioner obtained ₹4,50,000 by promising employment in Singapore and then failed both to secure the job and to return the money.

The Court considered these allegations sufficient, at the threshold, to disclose a prima facie cognizable offence requiring investigation.

Applying the principles in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to assess the petitioner’s defence or determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction.

The fact that the investigation was nearly complete did not justify quashing the FIR.

It directed the first respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 749 of 2019 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks of receiving the order, if one had not already been filed.

Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.