Factual Allegations of Co-Accused Participation Preclude Quashing of FIR at Investigative Stage

The petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) are the father and wife, respectively, of the first accused, Muralikrishnan.

The prosecution's case is that the first accused defrauded multiple individuals by promising government jobs in exchange for money, which he failed to provide.

The FIR (Cr. No. 90/2025) alleges that the petitioners aided and helped the first accused in the commission of the crime.

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the FIR, contending they had no connection to the transactions and that the defacto complainant had previously trespassed into their house and coerced the second accused to provide thumb impressions, for which they had lodged a prior complaint (CSR No. 133 of 2025).

1. Whether the FIR against the petitioners should be quashed at the investigation stage on the grounds of lack of material evidence and alleged embellishment.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Section 482 CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

During the investigation stage, the police cannot evaluate the truth or falsity of allegations made in a complaint.

The High Court should not interdict or interfere with an investigation at a "nascent stage" if the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

The court evaluated the petitioners’ argument that their inclusion in the FIR was a mere "embellishment" intended to pressure the family of the absconding first accused.

Because the FIR explicitly alleges that the petitioners "aided and helped" the prime accused, the veracity of these claims can only be determined through a thorough investigation.

The court noted that the investigating officer is legally prohibited from pre-judging the truth of the allegations at the registration stage.

The court found it premature to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR before the police could gather materials to determine whether the petitioners were actually involved in the "whole episode".

The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to furnish information to the investigating officer and may challenge the final report in the future if they are prosecuted without sufficient material on record.

Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.