Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where investigation materials disclose a prima facie case.

The petitioner, accused no. 1 and sister-in-law of accused no. 2, sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of proceedings arising from Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 344/21.

The complainant alleged that accused no. 2 had made inappropriate advances while assisting with photography and videography for her YouTube channel, and that on 29 November 2021 he and the petitioner used abusive language and threatened her outside her residential area.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against both accused under Sections 354, 354D, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner argued that the allegations against her were vague and did not disclose an offence; the State opposed quashing, relying on the case diary and the complainant’s statements.

1. Whether the allegations and materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315: quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection; criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage; and the Court should not assess the reliability or genuineness of allegations when deciding a quashing application.

The proceedings concerned alleged offences under Sections 354, 354D, 506, 509 and 34 IPC.

The Court considered the case diary, memo of evidence and the complainant’s statements recorded during investigation, and concluded that sufficient material existed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Applying the restraint required by Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to evaluate the truth or reliability of the allegations at the quashing stage and found no sufficient ground to terminate the proceedings.

Any connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and the record was directed to be returned, if applicable.