Disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated in FIR-quashing proceedings and must be investigated.

The petitioners sought to quash two FIRs registered by Kothanur Police: Crime No. 237/2026, alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 329(3), 74, 351(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Crime No. 285/2026, alleging offences under Sections 127(2), 329(3), 303(2), 324(4), 62 and 190 of the BNS.

The complaints arose from disputes concerning property over which four civil suits were pending; the petitioners referred to status quo orders in two of those suits.

The first complaint alleged assault and injury, while the second alleged removal and theft of a security box used by a security agency engaged at the property.

The petitioners disputed the allegations and contended that the proceedings followed modification of an interim order concerning the property.

1. Whether the FIR in Crime No. 237/2026 should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the pending civil disputes and the petitioners’ denial of the assault allegations.

2. Whether the FIR in Crime No. 285/2026 should be quashed where the parties disputed whether the security box had been stolen or otherwise removed.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoked to seek quashing of the FIRs.

It applied the principle that disputed questions of fact—here, whether an assault and injury occurred and whether the security box was stolen—could not be determined in these quashing proceedings and required investigation.

The order cites no precedent and does not set out a further statutory test for quashing.

Although civil disputes concerning the property were pending, the complaints also alleged criminal acts: assault resulting in injury and theft of the security box.

The parties gave conflicting accounts of both the alleged injury and the box’s removal, and the Court declined to resolve those factual disputes at the FIR-quashing stage.

It therefore held that the allegations required investigation rather than determination by the Court under Section 528 BNSS.

It clarified that its observations did not reflect on the merits of the parties’ contentions or the pending cases, and that the contentions were for the Investigating Officer to investigate.