High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS where disputed facts require trial adjudication.

The complainant, an MDRT Agent with Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., alleged that the petitioners, who were working in the same company, sexually harassed, insulted, humiliated and defamed her by making indecent and derogatory comments in the presence of office staff.

On her complaint dated 13 September 2025, FIR No. 0570/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, on 14 September 2025 for offences under Sections 3(5), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 3 November 2025, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Korba, framed charges on 5 December 2025.

The trial was pending at the stage of evidence, with the complainant’s cross-examination continuing.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, order framing charges and all consequential proceedings.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and materials collected during investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 3(5), 75 and 79 of the BNS against the petitioners, warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings?

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, could quash the proceedings on the basis of alleged delay, contradictions, improvements, lack of specific overt acts and the petitioners’ defence that the complaint was motivated by a professional dispute?

Whether the pending criminal proceedings constituted an exceptional case warranting interference after filing of the charge-sheet, framing of charges and commencement of trial?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

At the quashing stage, the Court must examine whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if taken at face value, prima facie disclose a cognizable offence; it must not conduct a mini-trial, assess witness credibility, determine the truthfulness of allegations or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court reiterated that quashing is an exceptional remedy to be exercised sparingly and that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the threshold.

It also relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 2 September 2025, and the principles in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, holding that material relied upon by the accused must be of sterling and impeccable quality, conclusively negate the prosecution case and demonstrate that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process before quashing may be justified.

The alleged offences were under Sections 3(5), 75 and 79 of the BNS.

The Court found that the FIR and charge-sheet contained specific allegations that the petitioners had made indecent and derogatory comments about the complainant in the presence of office staff, thereby prima facie disclosing the alleged offences.

The complainant’s statement, her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the videographed statement and statements of other witnesses constituted investigative material supporting continuation of the prosecution.

The petitioners’ assertions concerning the delay in lodging the FIR, variations between the office email and later statements, absence of witnesses, professional rivalry and alleged improvements were disputed factual matters requiring evaluation of evidence at trial, not determination under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Since the charge-sheet had been filed, charges had been framed and the trial was already in progress, the Court held that no exceptional circumstance or incontrovertible material existed to demonstrate that the prosecution was inherently absurd, impossible or an abuse of process.

Finding no ground for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, order framing charges or pending Sessions Trial No. 124/2025.

The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law and decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in the High Court’s order.