An FIR cannot be quashed merely on allegations of counterblast amid disputed factual issues.

The petitioners—Ram Lal, Madhu Bala and Puneet Singh—sought quashing of FIR No. 51/2024 registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, for offences under Sections 323, 382, 451 and 34 IPC, invoking Section 582 BNSS.

The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 3 and his son had forcibly entered their house during renovation work, assaulted them, and that the impugned FIR was lodged as a counterblast to an earlier case initiated by the petitioners.

Respondent No. 3 had approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC after the police allegedly declined to register his complaint. Pursuant to the Magistrate’s order dated 6 June 2023, the police registered the FIR and commenced investigation.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared a site plan, recorded witness statements, and concluded that offences under Sections 451, 323, 34, 504, 506 and 382 IPC were made out. Section 201 IPC was also invoked, and the investigation was completed with the challan awaiting the High Court’s decision.

Respondent No. 3 disputed the petitioners’ reliance on an alleged compromise, asserting that it concerned only a construction-related dispute and not the allegations in the FIR.

Whether FIR No. 51/2024 and the proceedings arising from it should be quashed under Section 582 BNSS on the ground that the allegations did not disclose any offence or that the FIR was a counterblast and an abuse of process.

Whether the existence of an earlier FIR and the parties’ underlying land dispute justified quashing the subsequent FIR at the investigation/charge-sheet stage.

Whether the alleged compromise between the parties provided a basis for quashing the impugned FIR.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Section 582 BNSS to examine the prayer for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

It applied the principle that an FIR should not be quashed where the investigation and material collected disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, particularly when disputed factual issues require examination by the trial court.

The Court further held that the mere existence of an earlier case, a counter-case, or prior hostility between the parties does not by itself justify quashing a subsequent FIR when the alleged incidents are distinct.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ counterblast argument because the alleged occurrence forming the basis of the impugned FIR was distinct in time and subject matter from the earlier FIR; therefore, the later FIR could not automatically be treated as retaliatory.

The parties’ admitted hostility and land dispute also did not justify terminating the proceedings, since these circumstances raised factual matters suitable for investigation and trial rather than for determination in a quashing petition.

The police investigation had collected material through a spot inspection, site plan and witness statements, and had found prima facie support for offences under Sections 451, 323, 34, 504, 506 and 382 IPC, with the investigation completed and the challan ready to be presented.

The disputed compromise was insufficient because Respondent No. 3 denied that it covered the FIR allegations and maintained that it related only to construction work and a ramp.

Consequently, the Court held that the investigating agency should be permitted to proceed and that the trial court could consider the petitioners’ objections at the stage of charge.

The petition was dismissed for being without merit, along with the connected application(s).