Counterblast and FIR-delay pleas involving disputed facts must be decided at trial, not in quashing proceedings.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash an FIR registered against him, the resulting charge-sheet, and the criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that on 6 March 2025 the petitioner caught hold of her from behind and committed obscene acts while abusing her.

The FIR was lodged on 23 May 2025, and a charge-sheet followed; the Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was a counterblast to an FIR his mother had lodged against the complainant’s husband on 6 March 2025, and relied also on the delay in reporting the alleged incident.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the petitioner’s claims that the FIR was a counterblast and was lodged after an inordinate delay.

2. Whether the counterblast and delay claims involved disputed questions of fact and evidence that should be determined at trial rather than in the present petition.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

It held that claims that an FIR is a counterblast or is delayed may involve disputed questions of fact and evidence; where they do, they are matters for adjudication during trial and cannot be resolved in the Section 528 proceedings.

The petitioner’s counterblast argument depended on the circumstances surrounding the earlier FIR lodged by his mother, while his delay argument concerned the interval between the alleged incident and the complaint.

The Court treated both as matters relating to the defence that required assessment of facts and evidence.

It declined to undertake that assessment in the Section 528 petition and left the issues for the trial court.

It granted the petitioner liberty to raise all available defences before the trial court, which was directed to decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.