High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Where Prima Facie Offence and Medical Evidence Support Prosecution.

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (equating to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashment of an FIR registered for offenses involving assault and criminal intimidation

The complainant alleged that the first petitioner (his former son-in-law) and the second petitioner arrived at his residence to meet a child and subsequently assaulted him, resulting in a rib fracture confirmed by medical reports

The petitioners contended that the FIR was a delayed, retaliatory measure following a finalized divorce and a custody dispute where the first petitioner had visitation rights

Conversely, the State and the complainant argued that while the formal FIR was registered 38 days post-incident, the initial complaint and medical examination occurred on the day of the assault

1. Whether the High Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, should quash an FIR where there are disputed questions of fact regarding the veracity of the allegations and alleged delays

2. Whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute the offenses charged

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), which grants inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of any court

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, emphasizing that quashing should be done sparingly and only in the "rarest of rare cases" where allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute a crime

Under XYZ v. State of Gujarat [para. 9] and State of M.P. v. Kunwar Singh [para. 16], the court noted that it must not conduct a "roving inquiry" or a "mini-trial" by meticulously scrutinizing evidence at this preliminary stage, as the reliability of evidence is a matter for the trial court

The court reasoned that the existence of a medical report showing a physical injury (rib fracture) and a recorded entry in the police daily diary on the actual date of the incident provides a sufficient prima facie basis for prosecution

The court found the petitioners' arguments—specifically the 38-day delay in formal registration and the claim that the case was a "counter-blast" to family disputes—to be disputed questions of fact

Citing established precedent, the court determined that a detailed inquiry into the merits or the appreciation of the defense's evidence was unauthorized at the quashing stage

Since the allegations, taken at face value, satisfy the elements of the charged offenses, the court concluded that short-circuiting the prosecution through Section 482 would be improper

The petition was dismissed, and the court refused to quash the FIR or the resulting charge-sheet, leaving the defense's arguments to be considered during the trial