An FIR should not be quashed at the threshold when specific allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 108 of the BNS, warranting continuation of the investigation.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash Crime No. 606 of 2025.

It also directed

It directed the respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 12 weeks of receiving a copy of the order, if the report had not already been filed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 606 of 2025, registered at P5 MKB Nagar Police Station following a complaint by the deceased’s father.

pp. 1–2

The prosecution alleged that the deceased died by suicide on 22 December 2025 after the petitioner and others conspired to assault the deceased.

pp. 1–2

The FIR invoked Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner denied involvement and argued that there was no material showing instigation, active aid or abetment.

pp. 1–2

The State submitted that the investigation was nearly complete and referred to the dismissal of a co-accused’s quash petition.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 108 of the BNS, warranting continuation of the investigation.

pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether the Court should exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR at the investigation stage.

pp. 1, 3–6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the basis for the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

p. 1

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 108 of the BNS.

pp. 2–3

Relying on *Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra*, (2019) 14 SCC 350, it stated that proceedings should not be stifled where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence; the Court should not undertake a detailed assessment of the evidence at the threshold.

pp. 3–4

It also relied on *M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra*, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principles that quashing an FIR is exceptional, an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, and investigation should ordinarily be allowed to proceed where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 296 Section 115 Section 108

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court found that the record contained specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner which, prima facie, satisfied the ingredients of the alleged offences.

pp. 3–6

It considered the allegations sufficient to require further investigation and held that the FIR’s failure to set out every fact was not a basis for quashing it.

pp. 3–6

Applying the principles in *Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar* and *Neeharika Infrastructure*, the Court declined to assess the merits or evidentiary sufficiency of the allegations while the investigation remained in progress.

pp. 3–6