High Court cannot quash ongoing investigation where collected materials prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

The petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 had allegedly shared a residential flat since 2017 and maintained regular financial dealings, including sharing household, travel and other personal expenses.

After Opposite Party No. 2’s marriage in August 2024 and an alleged altercation at the reception, he discovered on 17 August 2024 that multiple transactions had been carried out from his bank accounts without his knowledge or consent. He alleged that the petitioner admitted making the transactions but failed to return the money.

On the basis of the complaint, Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024 was registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and investigation commenced.

During investigation, the police collected bank records, digital evidence and witness statements.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceeding?

Whether the High Court should quash the proceeding under its inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature, that the FIR was lodged after substantial delay, and that the allegations did not establish entrustment or dishonest intention from inception?

Whether the Court could assess the reliability or sufficiency of the bank and digital evidence at the investigation stage while considering a petition for quashing?

The Court considered Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS concerning criminal breach of trust and cheating, respectively, and exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the principles formerly applied under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It applied the principles in R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, that quashing is justified where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, where continuation is legally barred, or where the evidence is legally absent or manifestly inconsistent with the accusation.

It further relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the illustrative categories permitting quashing where no offence is disclosed, the allegations are inherently improbable, or the prosecution is manifestly mala fide.

Relying on Binod Raghubanshi v. Ajoy Arora, (2013) 10 SCC 581, the Court held that a criminal investigation should not be terminated at the threshold where the allegations have some substance; the Court must not assess the probability, reliability or genuineness of the evidence at that stage.

The Court also reiterated that, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, it must not act as a trial court or undertake a detailed appreciation of disputed evidence.

The Court held that the FIR and the investigation materials did not present a case where no offence was disclosed or where the evidence was wholly inconsistent with the allegations.

The materials allegedly showed substantial debits from the complainant’s bank accounts, corresponding credits to accounts linked with the petitioner and his associates, and IP addresses connected with a mobile number registered in the petitioner’s name.

The investigation also indicated alleged misuse of the complainant’s confidence, routing of funds through multiple accounts and use of the money for personal expenditure.

The petitioner’s arguments concerning the parties’ prior relationship, the alleged civil character of the dispute, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of entrustment, lack of dishonest intention at inception, and partial repayment involved disputed factual matters.

These matters required evaluation of the evidence and could not be conclusively determined in a quashing petition at the investigation stage.

The Court therefore declined to accept the petitioner’s contention that the allegations were inherently improbable or amounted merely to a money-recovery dispute.

It also held that the ongoing investigation should not be stifled where the collected material prima facie supported the prosecution case.

It held that the FIR and the materials collected during the pending investigation prima facie disclosed a cognizable criminal case and that the disputed factual and evidentiary issues could not be adjudicated under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Finding no abuse of process or other compelling ground for interference, the Court dismissed CRR 4142 of 2024 and disposed of the connected applications.