Disputed Factual Pleas Regarding Knowledge and Harbouring of Offender Require Trial and Cannot Be Quashed

The applicant sought quashment of FIR No. 197/2025 and the subsequent charge-sheet filed for offences under Sections 238(a), 249(b), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 19 and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that after a brutal sexual assault on a six-year-old girl by principal accused Salman, the applicant knowingly provided Salman with shelter, labor work, and financial support while Salman was absconding.

The applicant contended that he merely hired a contractor (Zaid Khan) for construction work, who then sub-contracted the labor to another party, and that he had no direct knowledge of Salman’s identity or crimes.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

The court relied on the landmark principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which dictate that quashing is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly when allegations are inherently improbable.

The court further considered the statutory ingredients of Section 249(b) BNS (harboring an offender) and Sections 19 and 21(1) of the POCSO Act (failure to report an offence).

The court reasoned that while the applicant was not involved in the principal sexual assault, the allegations concerned his post-occurrence conduct in shielding the offender.

The court observed that the prosecution’s claim—that the applicant grew aware of Salman’s involvement through media reports and disclosure statements yet continued to provide shelter—constitutes a "triable issue".

The applicant’s defense regarding the subcontracting agreement and lack of supervisory control are factual defenses that require a "meticulous appreciation of evidence" during trial, which is impermissible at the quashing stage.

Given the gravity of the POCSO offence, the court found that the material collected during investigation prima facie attracted the invoked sections of the BNS and POCSO Act.

The court held that the petition was devoid of merit as it could not conduct a "roving enquiry" into the truthfulness of witness statements at this stage. The petition for quashment was dismissed.

The court clarified that these observations shall not influence the trial court’s final decision on merits.