FIR cannot be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when disputed facts require investigation.

The petitioners invoked Section 561-A of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 482 of the repealed CrPC and now referred to as Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 31/2019 registered at Police Station Amb Gharota for offences under Sections 447/34 RPC.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 19 April 2019, at about 7–8 p.m., the petitioners jointly trespassed upon and ploughed his land.

The petitioners contended that they had been in cultivating possession of land measuring 14 kanals and 1 marla comprised in Khasra No. 2254 and that the complaint was motivated, delayed, and lodged by a person without proper locus.

They relied on a revenue demarcation report dated 4 May 2019, which allegedly showed their possession over part of the disputed land.

The official respondents stated that investigation and demarcation established the complainant’s ownership and that the offences under Section 447 read with Section 34 RPC were made out.

Respondent No. 2 disputed the petitioners’ factual assertions, maintaining that the complaint concerned land comprised in Survey No. 2454, whereas the petitioners relied on Survey No. 2254.

The petitioners’ counsel did not appear for final hearing.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC/Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR No. 31/2019 alleging offences under Sections 447/34 RPC?

Whether the disputed questions concerning ownership, possession, survey numbers, demarcation, delay, and the complainant’s locus justified quashing the FIR at the investigation or pre-trial stage?

The Court applied Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC, corresponding to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the repealed CrPC and now identified with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.

It applied the settled Supreme Court principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases.

At the quashing stage, the Court should not conduct an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or correctness of the allegations unless they are so patently absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could accept them.

The inherent jurisdiction does not authorise the Court to decide disputed questions of fact or to act arbitrarily.

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, supported by the investigating agency’s assertion that demarcation and collected evidence disclosed the complainant’s claim over the land, could not be characterised as patently absurd or inherently improbable.

The petitioners’ reliance on their alleged possession, the demarcation report, the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant’s power of attorney, and the conflicting survey numbers raised contentious factual matters requiring investigation and, if necessary, trial; they could not be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing.

The Court also noted that the petitioners’ case concerned Khasra/Survey No. 2254, while the complainant claimed the encroached land fell under Survey No. 2454, reinforcing the need for factual determination rather than premature interference.

Accordingly, no exceptional ground for exercising inherent jurisdiction was established.

It held that the factual and evidentiary objections raised by the petitioners could be urged during investigation and at the stage of consideration of charge, if a charge-sheet was filed.

The petition was dismissed, and the connected applications were disposed of accordingly.