Defense pleas and investigative lapses are trial matters, not grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash FIR No. 287/2025, the subsequent charge-sheet, and the order framing charges dated 14.08.2025.

The charges involve Sections 64(2)(H) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 5(Q) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution was based solely on the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix and that the Investigating Agency ignored crucial electronic evidence (CCTV footage) and a plea of alibi supported by travel records.

The petitioner further alleged that the Trial Court failed to consider these investigative infirmities while rejecting the discharge application.

Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, can quash criminal proceedings by conducting a meticulous appreciation of evidence or evaluating a plea of alibi at the threshold stage.

Whether alleged lapses in investigation, such as improper handling of electronic evidence or failure to corroborate a victim’s statement, constitute sufficient grounds to quash a prima facie case of sexual offence.

Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

At the quashing stage, the court must only examine if the allegations, taken at face value, disclose an offence, without embarking on a "meticulous appreciation of evidence".

The statement of a victim of a sexual offence stands on a "higher pedestal" and can be sufficient to proceed without corroboration if found credible.

"Defective investigation" cannot be a ground to quash proceedings when prima facie material exists.

The Court observed that the prosecution had followed due procedure, including recording the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, conducting medical examinations, and preparing a spot map.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s arguments—specifically the plea of alibi, the reliability of CCTV footage, and inconsistencies in investigation—are matters of defense that require full-fledged examination and cross-examination during trial.

The Court emphasized that it cannot evaluate the "probative value" of materials at this stage.

Regarding the electronic evidence, the Court held that even if deficiencies existed in the investigation, they do not dismantle the prosecution’s case at the threshold given the specific allegations made by the victim.

Since the Trial Court had already applied its judicial mind in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges, no perversity was found.

The Court held that interfering at this stage would amount to "stifling a legitimate prosecution" and that disputed questions of fact must be adjudicated during the trial.

Relief was denied, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.