Disputed evidence and charge applicability should be considered by the trial court at charge-framing.

The informant alleged that the petitioner, a secretary of Batirkupa Samabai Samittee Ltd., and its then chairman misappropriated ₹9,50,000 from the Samittee’s bank account through withdrawals made between April and August 2020.

The FIR was registered as Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 886/2020 under Sections 409, 406, 420 and 34 IPC, and a charge-sheet was later filed against the petitioner

The petitioner relied on a departmental enquiry report, contending that the withdrawals were made to meet expenses for distributing PDS articles during the COVID-19 lockdown and that the report exonerated him

He sought to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and proceedings under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed at this stage, before charges have been framed

2. Whether the petitioner’s contention that Section 409 IPC does not apply to him, and his reliance on the departmental enquiry report, could be determined in the quashing petition rather than at the stage of consideration of charges

The petition invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Article 227 of the Constitution

The alleged offences were under Sections 409, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

The Court reasoned that, where charges have not yet been framed, the petitioner’s contention about the applicability of Section 409 IPC and the evidentiary significance of the enquiry report could be placed before the Trial Court at the charge-framing stage; the Trial Court could then decide the matter in accordance with law

No precedent was cited.

The Court declined to assess the enquiry report or otherwise delve into the evidence in the quashing proceeding, noting that charges were yet to be framed

It held that the petitioner’s argument that he was not a public servant and therefore could not be charged under Section 409 IPC was appropriately for the Trial Court to consider when framing charges

As to the other alleged offences, the Court found no basis at that stage to quash the FIR and concluded that the proceedings could not be truncated at the threshold

The Trial Court was to decide those contentions in accordance with law

The interim stay granted on 24 November 2025 was vacated