Criminal proceedings quashed where no deceitful intent at inception was shown and the FIR appeared a mala fide counterblast.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner, with whom she was acquainted, established physical relations with her on the assurance that he would marry her, but subsequently refused to marry her. A Zero FIR was initially registered at the Women Police Station, Katni, and was thereafter transferred to Police Station Gosalpur, District Jabalpur, where FIR No. 317/2026 was registered for offences under Sections 69, 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The petitioner contended that the FIR was a malicious counterblast arising from a matrimonial dispute. He relied on complaints submitted to the police on 8 July 2026, to the Superintendent of Police thereafter, and proceedings instituted before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) on 11 July 2026, in which he had allegedly apprehended that respondent No. 2 would falsely implicate him if he refused to marry her.

The impugned FIR was registered on 19 July 2026.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed the prima facie ingredients of offences under Sections 69, 296 and 351(3) of the BNS?

2. Whether the prosecution was manifestly attended by mala fide and instituted as an ulterior-motive counterblast to the petitioner’s prior complaints and refusal to marry respondent No. 2, thereby warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?

3. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and require quashing under the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal?

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

It relied on the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which quashing is permissible where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive.

Section 69 BNS requires sexual intercourse pursuant to a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling that promise; a mere subsequent refusal or failure to marry is insufficient.

The Court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, which requires the promise to have been false from its inception and accompanied by an intention not to fulfil it when made.

Section 296 BNS requires an obscene act or obscene words in or near a public place, coupled with annoyance to others.

Section 351(3) BNS applies to aggravated criminal intimidation involving specified threats, including threats of death, grievous hurt, certain serious offences, destruction of property by fire, or imputing unchastity to a woman.

The Court held that the statutory ingredients of Section 69 BNS were not sufficiently established merely by alleging physical relations followed by refusal to marry; the material did not prima facie demonstrate that the petitioner had no intention to marry at the time the promise was allegedly made.

The prior complaints and Magistrate proceedings, which specifically recorded the petitioner’s apprehension of false implication, preceded the FIR by a short interval and substantially corresponded with the accusation later made by respondent No. 2.

This chronology, together with the allegations of pressure to marry and monetary demands, materially supported the petitioner’s plea that the FIR was a counterblast arising from the matrimonial dispute.

The allegations also lacked the factual foundation for Section 296 BNS because they did not disclose an obscene act or obscene words in or near a public place causing annoyance to others.

Similarly, the material did not disclose any threat falling within the aggravated categories required for Section 351(3) BNS.

Although the Court acknowledged that disputed facts ordinarily should not be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS, it found that the absence of prima facie statutory ingredients, read with the surrounding chronology indicating an ulterior purpose, made continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.

It held that the allegations did not sufficiently disclose the ingredients of Sections 69, 296 or 351(3) BNS and that the FIR appeared to have been lodged mala fide as a counterblast to the petitioner’s prior complaints and refusal to marry respondent No. 2.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 528 BNSS was allowed, and FIR No. 317/2026 dated 19 July 2026, arising from the Zero FIR registered at the Women Police Station, Katni, together with all consequential criminal proceedings, was quashed qua the petitioner.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on any independent civil, matrimonial or other remedy available to either party.