An FIR should not be quashed where allegations require investigation to establish the facts.

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, sought to quash Crime No. 50 of 2024, registered on the second respondent’s complaint for offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 379 and 506(ii) IPC.

The complaint alleged that the petitioners and others entered the complainant’s property intending to occupy it, used abusive language and threats, stole articles, and damaged a thatched shed.

The petitioners asserted that the parties were neighbouring landowners, the dispute was civil in nature, and the allegations were false and vague.

The investigation was ongoing when the petition was heard.

Whether the FIR disclosed allegations warranting investigation for the offences alleged, or was liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the petitioners’ claims that the complaint was false and arose from a civil property dispute justified quashing the FIR before completion of the investigation.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, but the power to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Relying on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided 13 April 2021, the Court stated that, while investigation is underway, the Court should not prematurely assess the merits of the allegations or prevent the police from completing the investigation; if the investigation finds no substance, the investigating officer may submit an appropriate report to the Magistrate.

The Court distinguished Murali v. Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Police Station, Crl. O.P. No. 4980 of 2019, because that decision concerned non-production of NDPS contraband, unlike the allegations of theft and mischief in this case.

The FIR alleged entry onto the complainant’s property, theft, property damage, abusive language and criminal intimidation.

The petitioners’ denial of the allegations and assertion that the dispute was civil did not, in the Court’s view, justify determining their truth before the investigation was completed.

The alleged theft and damage were matters for the investigating agency to examine and verify; the Court therefore declined to assess the evidence or merits at the FIR stage.

It permitted the investigation to proceed and directed the investigating agency to file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within two months of receiving a copy of the order.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.