FIRs disclosing prima facie forgery and cheating offences should not be quashed at the investigation stage.

The second respondent alleged that the petitioners purchased approximately 1.50 kg of gold ornaments from him, fabricated invoices in his name, uploaded them to the GST portal, and failed to pay ₹1,65,00,000.

On that complaint, the first respondent registered Crime No. 234 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 465, 468 and 420 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court recorded that the complaint contained specific allegations of fabrication and cheating.

Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 465, 468 and 420 IPC warranting investigation.

Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold on the basis of the petitioners’ challenge, including the contention that the dispute arose from commercial transactions.

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered Sections 465, 468 and 420 IPC, concerning forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and cheating.

Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, it stated that at the initial stage the court considers whether the allegations disclose a prima facie offence, rather than assessing whether the evidence will result in conviction; criminal proceedings are not to be quashed merely because the allegations appear civil in nature.

It also relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principles that quashing an FIR is exceptional, that investigation should not ordinarily be stopped at the threshold, and that the court’s inquiry is whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court found that the alleged fabrication of the second respondent’s invoices and their upload to the GST portal, together with the alleged non-payment for the gold, constituted specific allegations capable of disclosing the charged offences.

It rejected the premise that the matter could be treated merely as a commercial transaction, given the additional allegations of fabricated invoices and cheating.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court declined to evaluate the merits of the evidence or predict the outcome of the investigation at the FIR stage.

It dismissed the Criminal Original Petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.