Disputed factual questions and evidentiary issues cannot justify quashing preventive proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged Istagasha No. 75/2026 dated 19 April 2026 and Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026 initiated at Police Station Supela, Durg, under Sections 126, 135(3) and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), alleging apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of public safety

He alleged that he had been unlawfully intercepted, detained and falsely implicated while preparing to approach higher authorities against the Superintendent of Police, Durg

The petitioner relied upon an alleged inconsistency between the information time recorded in the Istagasha—1:30 p.m.—and the arrest memo, which recorded his arrest at 1:00 p.m., as well as a time-stamped video allegedly showing him peacefully walking at 1:23 p.m.

He further alleged that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him or communicated to his family, and that the preventive proceedings were initiated without identifying the specific intended cognizable offence, examining the other party, receiving a public complaint, or associating independent witnesses

His requests included quashing of the preventive proceedings, disciplinary action, compensation of ₹10 lakh, and preservation of CCTV footage.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the police had acted under statutory preventive powers and that the alleged discrepancies and procedural violations involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary examination

1. Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to quash Istagasha No. 75/2026 and Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026 on the basis of the alleged timing discrepancy, the petitioner’s time-stamped video, and asserted procedural irregularities in his detention

2. Whether the petitioner had established that the preventive proceedings were initiated mala fide to prevent him from approaching higher authorities against the Superintendent of Police, Durg

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential reliefs, including disciplinary action, compensation and preservation of CCTV footage

The Court applied the preventive-power provisions of Sections 126, 135(3) and 170 of the BNSS, under which preventive action may be taken where the statutory conditions relating to apprehended breach of peace or public safety are satisfied

It further applied the principle governing writ jurisdiction that disputed questions of fact, including the chronology of events, authenticity and evidentiary value of videos, circumstances of detention, and correctness of police allegations, ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated solely on pleadings and documents in a writ petition

Alleged non-compliance with arrest safeguards may have legal consequences if established, but such disputed allegations do not, without examination of the relevant record, automatically warrant quashing of preventive proceedings

The Court held that the alleged discrepancy between the Istagasha and arrest memo times did not, by itself, conclusively prove fabrication or mala fides

The petitioner’s time-stamped video and the absence of stored CCTV footage required appreciation of evidentiary material and therefore could not determine the validity of the proceedings at the writ stage

Similarly, the allegations concerning non-communication of the grounds of arrest and other procedural safeguards were treated as disputed factual matters requiring further examination

The Court also found no sufficient material to conclude that the preventive action had been undertaken solely to obstruct the petitioner from approaching higher authorities against the Superintendent of Police

Since the petitioner’s principal grounds depended upon factual adjudication rather than an apparent jurisdictional or legal defect on the face of the record, the Court declined to grant the requested writ relief

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the consequential claims for disciplinary action, compensation and other reliefs were consequently not granted

No order as to costs was made