Charge-sheet cannot be quashed where allegations and witness statements prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, seeking to quash Charge-sheet No. 451/2025 and FIR No. 357/2025

The FIR was registered following the death of Omprakash Verma due to electrocution

Investigations revealed that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, allegedly conspired to lay live electric wires connected to a nearby temple to trap wild animals

It was alleged that the victim accidentally touched the wire and died, after which the accused attempted to destroy evidence by concealing the wires

The petitioner contended that his involvement was based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused with no independent recovery, making it inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

He previously filed a quashing petition (Cr.M.P. No. 474/2026) which was dismissed with liberty to challenge the charge-sheet once filed

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet against the petitioner should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations are based solely on the inadmissible statement of a co-accused

2. Whether the material on record prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process

It relied on the landmark precedent M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in the "rarest of rare cases," emphasizing that the court must not evaluate the reliability or merits of allegations at the investigation stage but only whether a cognizable offence is disclosed

The court also considered Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 238(B) (causing disappearance of evidence), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.)

The Court observed that while the petitioner claimed his implication was based only on a co-accused's statement, the case diary contained additional evidence

Specifically, the statements of witnesses Sunil, Narayan, and Dilip prima facie established the petitioner’s active participation, including allegations that he directed his nephew to connect the wires and provided liquor to the other accused during the act

Applying the Neeharika principle, the Court held that it cannot conduct a mini-trial or inquire into the reliability of allegations at this stage

Since the material annexed to the charge-sheet suggested the petitioner’s involvement in spreading live wires and common intention, the legal threshold for quashing was not met, as the allegations, taken at face value, constitute the charged offences

The Court concluded that it could not be said that no offence was disclosed, and therefore, interference with the charge-sheet was not warranted

The prayer for quashing Charge-sheet No. 451/2025 and FIR No. 357/2025 was denied