Disputed facts and pleas of alibi cannot be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR.

The petitioners (the husband and father-in-law of the respondent) filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 58/2025 registered at Mahila Thana, Bhind.

The FIR alleged offenses under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant alleged that after her marriage in April 2024, the petitioners harassed her for a motorcycle and Rs. 5,00,000, eventually assaulting and expelling her from the matrimonial home on September 25, 2024.

The petitioners argued that the allegations were vague and motivated by mala fide intent, noting that a previous FIR filed by the complainant regarding a domestic dispute on September 19, 2024, contained no mention of dowry demands.

They further raised a plea of alibi, asserting they were on active military duty in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh at the time of the alleged incident.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the grounds that the allegations are inherently improbable or constitute an abuse of the process of law.

2. Whether the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact such as a plea of alibi or the credibility of evidence at the threshold stage.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The court adhered to the established principle that such power must be used "sparingly" and only when the FIR, taken at face value, fails to disclose a cognizable offense.

Section 85 of the BNS regarding matrimonial cruelty.

The guidelines for preliminary inquiries in matrimonial disputes established in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017).

The Court reasoned that the FIR contained specific and categorical allegations of dowry harassment and physical ill-treatment that were not "so absurd or inherently improbable" as to be discarded without a trial.

The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the delay in filing the FIR and the omissions in previous statements, categorizing these as matters of defense that require the appreciation of evidence during trial rather than in a quashment proceeding.

Regarding the plea of alibi, the Court held that such a claim is a matter of evidence to be established during the trial and cannot be adjudicated at a preliminary stage under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court noted that matrimonial offenses usually occur within the privacy of a home, making the statements of the victim and relatives primary evidence that should not be prematurely scuttled.

The Court ruled that even if procedural guidelines from Rajesh Sharma were not strictly followed, it does not warrant quashing if the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offenses.

The Court directed the investigating agency to proceed strictly in accordance with the law and clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the present petition and should not influence the merits of the trial.