Discrepancies Between Judicial Statements and Subsequent Recantations Constitute Trial Defences, Not Grounds for Quashing FIR

The Petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No. 0356/2024 registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecutrix, a minor aged 14, alleged that the Petitioner twice committed forcible sexual assault upon her in December 2023 and threatened her siblings.

The prosecutrix initially supported the prosecution in her statement under Section 183 BNSS (formerly Section 164 Cr.P.C.).

The Petitioner contended that during subsequent investigation, bail hearings, and a related Writ Petition, the prosecutrix withdrew her allegations, claiming she was influenced by her mother and an advocate due to a gaushala property dispute.

The investigation also recorded an ossification test placing her age at 15-16 years and failed to verify claims of a terminated pregnancy.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to quash criminal proceedings when the prosecutrix issues contradictory subsequent statements during the investigation.

2. Whether discrepancies between a judicial statement under Section 183 BNSS and subsequent retractions constitute a sufficient ground for quashing an FIR prior to trial.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding inherent powers of the High Court.

Foundational principles for quashing established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which mandates that power should be used sparingly and only if allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence or are maliciously instituted.

Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that courts cannot embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at a preliminary stage.

Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which holds that discrepancies between an FIR and a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement are matters of defense and not grounds for discharge without trial.

The Petitioner argued that the prosecutrix's repeated retractions and the lack of medical evidence regarding pregnancy demolished the prosecution's case.

The Court, however, reasoned that the prosecutrix had historically supported the allegations in a judicial statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

The existence of multiple, conflicting statements at different stages creates a situation that necessitates the appreciation of oral testimony and evidence, which is exclusively the domain of the Trial Court.

The High Court noted that it cannot "conclusively determine" which version is true in a quashing petition.

It found that since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence involving a minor, and the chargesheet had already been filed, the proceedings did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold required for interference.

The Court clarified that the observations made in this judgment are limited to the maintainability of the quashing petition and shall not influence the Trial Court’s independent assessment of the merits. The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise all contentions at the stage of charge or trial.