Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences requiring trial evidence.

The petitioners sought the quashing of a charge-sheet and an order of cognizance dated 14.07.2025 arising from FIR No. 129/2025

The dispute originated from a financial transaction where Petitioner No. 1 had advanced ₹10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2, which led to a civil decree in favor of the petitioner on 03.02.2026

On 29.05.2025, a physical altercation allegedly occurred; the prosecution alleged the petitioners forcibly entered the complainant's house, used obscene language, and assaulted the complainant with an iron rod

The petitioners contended the incident was a spontaneous mutual altercation involving only simple injuries, arguing that the invocation of serious penal provisions was an attempt to criminalize a civil dispute

During the investigation, an iron rod was recovered from Petitioner No. 1, and statements from witnesses were recorded

1. Whether the criminal proceedings, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order, are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the dispute is essentially civil and the allegations are exaggerated.

2. Whether the materials on record prima facie establish the commission of cognizable offences warranting a trial.

The court considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 333 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt), 296 (obscene acts/abuse), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 324(2) (mischief), and 3(5) (joint liability)

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash proceedings should only be exercised when the allegations are wholly absurd or inherently improbable

The court further relied on the doctrine that matters of defense, such as the existence of counter-complaints or the civil nature of an underlying dispute, are to be adjudicated during trial rather than at the threshold stage

The Court analyzed the prosecution's evidence, including witness statements, the seizure of a weapon (iron rod), and the spot panchnama, concluding that these elements prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences

It rejected the petitioners' argument that the financial backdrop of the case necessitated quashing, noting that the existence of a prior monetary dispute or a civil decree does not absolve parties of potential criminal liability for acts committed during an altercation

The Court reasoned that the truthfulness of the allegations and the specific intent (such as prior preparation for house-trespass) are matters of evidence that require appreciation by the trial court

Consequently, the Court found that the proceedings did not constitute an abuse of process as the allegations were not "wholly absurd"

The Court declined to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet (Final Report No. 97/2025) or the cognizance order dated 14.07.2025

The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit