FIR quashing is impermissible where allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and involve disputed facts.

The petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on collector-rate terms at the District Hospital, Narsinghpur, and joined service on 23 December 2010.

He and three other operators processed applications for birth and death certificates under the supervision of the Civil Surgeon, who was stated to be the competent Registrar and whose digital signature and official credentials were used for issuing certificates.

Following a complaint concerning a death certificate issued in relation to late Kamal Joshi, an administrative enquiry was conducted.

The petitioner was removed from service, and Crime No. 338/2026 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Narsinghpur, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner’s contentions involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination at the stage of quashing.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie case under the alleged provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the petitioner so as to warrant their quashing under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner’s pleas concerning his subordinate role, absence of sanction, lack of dishonest intention, mala fides, selective prosecution and disputed responsibility for processing the certificate could be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Whether the High Court should undertake an appreciation of evidence or adjudication of disputed factual defences at the stage of considering the FIR.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the judgment also referred, inconsistently, to proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The governing principle applied was that an FIR may be quashed where it does not disclose a cognizable offence, but where its allegations prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the Court should not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, assess the probable defence, or decide disputed questions of fact at the pre-trial stage.

The alleged offences were stated to be under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; paragraph 5 of the order, however, refers to Section “18(4)” rather than Section 318(4).

The petitioner’s reliance on the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, including the statutory role of the Registrar and the alleged requirement of sanction, was treated as involving factual and legal defences not requiring determination at the FIR-quashing stage.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations and attributed a definite role to the petitioner, rather than making vague or omnibus allegations.

On that basis, it held that there was prima facie material indicating the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

The petitioner’s assertions that he acted only under the Civil Surgeon’s directions, lacked authority to verify documents, did not personally issue the certificate, had no dishonest intention, and was targeted because of prior enmity were matters requiring examination of evidence and resolution of disputed facts.

Similarly, the pleas concerning sanction, the Civil Surgeon’s responsibility, and the alleged discriminatory omission to prosecute other Data Entry Operators could not justify quashing where the FIR, on its face, disclosed cognizable offences.

The Court therefore declined to assess the petitioner’s defence or undertake a detailed evidentiary inquiry in the inherent-jurisdiction proceedings.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.