FIR cannot be quashed where prima facie allegations involve disputed facts requiring investigation.

The petitioner, the authorised officer/manager of Laxmi Narayan Hospital, sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 0447/2026, registered at Police Station Ambikapur under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), by invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Respondent No. 3 alleged that he had brought his paternal uncle to the hospital on 17 April 2026 for treatment of cardiac blockage. Although the hospital initially represented that angioplasty and insertion of three stents would be covered through the Ayushman Card, it allegedly demanded and received ₹1,60,000 in cash after stating that the card was blocked. It was subsequently alleged that ₹1,50,460 had also been deducted through the Ayushman Card, while only two stents were inserted and the hospital failed to provide bills.

The petitioner contended that the patient had remained hospitalised from 17 April to 29 April 2026, underwent an emergency angioplasty involving one balloon and two stents, and that the total treatment bill was ₹4,93,814, against which ₹1,60,000 was paid in cash and ₹1,50,460 was received through the Ayushman Card.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the allegations disclosed a serious cognizable offence and that the matter was still under investigation.

The petitioner had previously withdrawn an application seeking the same relief, with liberty to file afresh.

Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie disclosed the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS so as to justify continuation of the investigation?

Whether the disputed issues concerning Ayushman Card deductions, cash payment, number of stents inserted, treatment charges, and non-supply of bills could be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR at the investigation stage?

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court held that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, particularly where the FIR, even if accepted at face value, discloses a cognizable offence; however, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not constitute any offence or are patently absurd or improbable.

Relying on Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., the Court reiterated that a prima facie case ordinarily bars quashing, while the Court must remain circumspect.

Under Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court cannot assess the reliability or genuineness of FIR allegations, appreciate evidence, conduct a mini-trial, or ordinarily obstruct investigation into cognizable offences.

The Court also relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which reaffirmed that disputed questions of fact and evidentiary worth cannot be adjudicated under inherent jurisdiction.

The Court found that the FIR contained allegations which, if accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation.

The alleged double recovery through cash and the Ayushman Card, the discrepancy between the number of stents allegedly promised and actually inserted, the amount charged, and the alleged failure to issue bills were disputed factual matters.

Determining whether the hospital had unlawfully realised money or charged more than warranted by the treatment would require examination of medical, billing, Ayushman Card, and other investigative material.

Such an enquiry would amount to evaluating evidence or conducting a mini-trial, which was impermissible under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petitioner’s explanations and documents were therefore matters to be placed before the Investigating Officer, rather than grounds for quashing the FIR at the threshold.

The petitioner was permitted to submit all relevant documents, explanations, and other defence material to the Investigating Officer, who was directed to consider them in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s defence, and preserved the petitioner’s right to raise all permissible grounds before the appropriate authority or court at the appropriate stage.