Court Cannot Stifle Investigation Under Section 528 BNSS Where Allegations Prima Facie Establish Offences

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 557/2024 and the subsequent criminal proceedings in Case No. 26/2025.

On October 25, 2024, the petitioners allegedly led a crowd of approximately 400 people to protest against an Ethanol Plant near the Collectorate and SP office in Bemetara without prior permission.

The Tehsildar filed a complaint alleging that the assembly violated a prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS and caused public obstruction.

A charge sheet was filed on December 31, 2024, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on January 6, 2025, framing charges on April 13, 2026, under Sections 126(1), 221, 223, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of an offense.

2. Whether the court can evaluate the reliability of evidence or the legality of a prohibitory order at the preliminary stage of a quashing petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC) to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the settled principle that a prosecution should not be "stifled" at the threshold if the allegations have substance or prima facie establish an offense.

The court further applied the doctrine that at the stage of quashing, the court must not embark on an inquiry into the probability, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations, nor should it "kill a stillborn child" by shutting out investigation.

The Court observed that the FIR, based on a complaint by the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), clearly alleged that the petitioners led an unauthorized protest involving 400 people, causing obstruction to public servants and citizens.

Although the petitioners argued that the prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS was applied retrospectively and that they had provided prior intimation via the Sarpanch, the Court held that these defenses constitute matters of evidence to be determined during the trial.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners were identified as the "key persons" leading the protest, the lack of prosecution against the other 400 participants did not invalidate the case against them.

Applying the test for quashing, the Court found that the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR prima facie established the charges, and therefore, it could not interfere with the gravity of the offense or the role played by the petitioners at this pre-trial stage.

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR or the criminal proceedings.

The petitioners' claims regarding the illegality of the prohibitory order and the lack of independent witnesses are matters for the trial court to decide after recording evidence.