Courts cannot quash FIRs under inherent jurisdiction where allegations require appreciation of disputed evidence.

On 21 November 2019, a neighbourhood dispute arose after the physically disabled son of Dinesh Gaur accidentally came into contact with a vehicle parked by the complainant’s family.

A verbal altercation followed by a physical scuffle allegedly ensued.

FIR No. 617/2019 was registered on 24 November 2019 at Police Station Khajuri Khas, North-East Delhi, against six persons, including the Petitioners, under Sections 354B, 323 and 34 IPC.

Petitioner No. 1 was allegedly accused only of verbally abusing the complainant, while no specific act was attributed to Petitioner No. 2.

The Petitioners contended that the FIR contained omnibus allegations, that they had no connection with the principal disputing families, and that the three-day delay in registration of the FIR cast doubt on their implication.

They sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the Petitioners should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the ground that they contained only omnibus or non-specific allegations.

Whether the Petitioners’ contentions regarding their alleged roles, false implication, and delay in registration of the FIR involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication at trial rather than in quashing proceedings.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 354B, 323 and 34 of the IPC.

Relying on State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Court reiterated that the power to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional cases.

At the quashing stage, the Court cannot examine the reliability or genuineness of allegations, conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence, or undertake a mini-trial; disputed factual matters and the sufficiency of the accused’s role must ordinarily be determined by the Trial Court.

The Court held that the Petitioners’ objections—namely, the absence of individualized allegations, the alleged omnibus nature of the FIR, the asserted lack of connection with the complainant’s family, the delay in registration, and the claim of false implication—required appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed facts.

The questions whether the allegations were ultimately true, whether the roles attributed to the Petitioners were sufficient to constitute the alleged offences, and whether they had been falsely implicated could not be conclusively decided under Section 528 BNSS without undertaking a mini-trial.

Applying the restrictive principles governing inherent jurisdiction, the Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting quashing of the FIR or the consequential proceedings.

The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 617/2019 and all consequential proceedings was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the quashing petition and would not prejudice the proceedings before the Trial Court; any pending applications were also disposed of.