High Court cannot quash FIR disclosing cognizable offences by adjudicating disputed questions of fact.

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur.

The FIR, lodged on March 4, 2026, alleged that Petitioner No. 1 surreptitiously recorded a video of the complainant’s daughter while she was changing clothes.

It further alleged that when the complainant’s son later went to a shop, the petitioners threatened him, with Petitioner No. 2 assaulting him with a sharp object while Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 used physical force.

The petitioners contended the FIR was a retaliatory and motivated proceeding, citing a counter-complaint filed earlier that day by the mother of Petitioner No. 1 against the complainant’s son for intoxication and harassment.

They argued the allegations were "omnibus" and that the immediate deletion of the alleged video rendered the prosecution's narrative improbable.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash an FIR that prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences.

Whether the existence of a counter-report and disputed questions of fact regarding the motive of the complainant are sufficient grounds to scuttle a criminal investigation at the initial stage.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It heavily relied on the principles established in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in the "rarest of rare cases".

The court underscored that police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offences and that courts should not thwart such investigations unless no offence of any kind is disclosed.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that it cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations at the quashing stage.

The court observed that the impugned FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of several cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3), and 77.

Applying the Neeharika Infrastructure doctrine, the court reasoned that since the allegations—voyeurism and physical assault in the presence of witnesses—constitute cognizable offences, the judicial process should not interfere with the police's statutory duty to investigate.

Regarding the petitioners' defense of false implication and the existence of a counter-complaint, the court held that these constitute "disputed questions of fact".

Such matters require the appreciation of evidence by a trial court and cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under inherent jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the petition failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the FIR clearly reflected cognizable offences requiring investigation and that the defense's claims of retaliation or improbable facts were matters for trial.

Consequently, the prayer to quash the FIR and stay the arrest of the petitioners was denied.