Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where the complaint and charge-sheet disclose prima facie cognizable offences.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage to petitioner No. 1, he abused and assaulted her, while members of his family demanded dowry and instigated him to mistreat her.

She further alleged that the petitioners expelled her from the matrimonial home and misappropriated her *stridhan*.

After stating that she had approached the police without action, she filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who forwarded it to the police for investigation.

The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners, and the SDJM took cognizance under Sections 85, 82(1) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in varying combinations against petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 2–5.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing, among other things, that the allegations against petitioners Nos. 2–5 were vague.

1. Whether the complaint and ensuing criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed because the complainant had not stated that she first approached the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC before seeking a Magistrate’s direction for investigation.

2. Whether, on the allegations in the complaint and the materials reflected in the charge sheet and cognizance order, the proceedings against the petitioners warranted quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, a complaint should not be quashed where its allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, make out a case against the accused.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, sets out the usual sequence where police do not register an FIR: approach the police under Section 154(1) CrPC, then the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 156(3); the relevant steps should be stated in the application to the Magistrate.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, requires an affidavit in support of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Court also considered Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514, which it understood to permit non-interference with an irregularity where no prejudice was caused.

Although the complaint did not state that respondent No. 2 had approached the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC, the Magistrate’s order recorded that she had filed an affidavit explaining why she chose to approach the Court.

Applying Anurag Bhatnagar, the Court declined to quash the proceedings on that procedural ground.

On the merits, it found that the complaint alleged dowry demands, assault and expulsion from the matrimonial home, and that the investigation materials referred to the petitioners’ alleged misappropriation of *stridhan*.

The Court considered these allegations and the Magistrate’s finding of a prima facie case sufficient to prevent quashing at this stage under the Bhajan Lal principle.

It found no infirmity in the cognizance order and dismissed the petition, leaving the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order undisturbed.