Disputed allegations requiring investigation cannot be resolved by conducting a mini-trial at the FIR stage.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that petitioner No. 1, a teacher, promised to secure a medical seat in Russia for his son and received ₹5,69,900 through bank transfers, but no seat was procured.

The police registered Crime No. 0153/2020 for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and began investigating.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that a seat had been secured but the complainant’s son failed to meet the requirements for admission.

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed when the petitioners’ claim that a seat was secured, and that admission failed because of the complainant’s son, raised matters requiring investigation

2. Whether deciding the competing versions at the investigation stage would impermissibly require the Court to conduct a mini-trial

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court applied the principle that, at the nascent stage of investigation, it would not conduct a mini-trial to determine disputed factual claims; the parties’ competing accounts and supporting material were matters for investigation.

No precedent was cited.

The petitioners’ assertion that a seat had been procured, and that admission failed because of the complainant’s son, directly contradicted the complaint’s allegation that no seat was obtained.

The Court held that resolving this factual dispute would require a mini-trial, which was inappropriate at the early investigation stage.

It left the petitioners at liberty to place relevant material before the investigating agency and, if an adverse report were filed, to challenge it in accordance with law.

and dismissed the writ petition, reserving the petitioners’ liberty to challenge any adverse report in accordance with law.