High Courts cannot quash prosecution by adjudicating alibi and evidentiary disputes under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioners—Jagannath Baghel, the deceased’s father-in-law, and Deepak Baghel and Vikram Baghel, her brothers-in-law—sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR Crime No. 505/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Balaghat for offences under Sections 103(1), 80, 232(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The deceased, Upasna Baghel, was married to Vishal Baghel on 29 May 2021 and died on 4 November 2024. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with Vishal, subjected her to dowry-related harassment, pressured her to compromise or withdraw earlier criminal cases, and participated in her strangulation. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was registered as R.C.T. No. 1295/2024 before the Trial Court.

The petitioners relied on their separate residences and employment postings at Seoni, Jabalpur and Bhilai, and contended that the allegations were principally against the deceased’s husband.

The respondents opposed quashing, relying on the deceased’s earlier complaint regarding dowry harassment, prior criminal proceedings involving the husband and his family, and the deceased’s alleged telephonic disclosure to her sister Prachi on 3 November 2024 that the petitioners were threatening and pressuring her to withdraw the earlier complaint.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 103(1), 80, 232(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, warranting continuation of the prosecution?

Whether the petitioners’ plea that they were residing elsewhere and were not present at the place of occurrence justified quashing the proceedings at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS?

Whether the High Court could assess the reliability of the prosecution evidence, adjudicate the plea of alibi, or conduct a mini-trial while considering the petition for quashing?

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to the principles governing Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that quashing is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently absurd, or are manifestly mala fide; however, the Court must not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or a mini-trial.

Under CBI v. Aryan Singh, Abhishek v. State of M.P., Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, the High Court is required only to determine whether sufficient prima facie material exists and cannot test the truthfulness, admissibility or reliability of the prosecution evidence at the quashing stage.

The Court further treated the plea of alibi as a factual defence ordinarily requiring evidence at trial, while applying the substantive provisions of Sections 80, 103(1), 232(1) and 3(5) of the BNS as reflected in the FIR and charge-sheet.

The Court held that the prosecution case was not founded merely on the petitioners’ relationship with the deceased’s husband. It relied on the deceased’s earlier criminal complaint concerning dowry harassment, the alleged continuing pattern of harassment and pressure, and, most significantly, the allegation that immediately before her death she informed her sister that the petitioners were pressuring her to withdraw the earlier case and threatening her family.

These allegations, if accepted at face value, were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case requiring trial. The petitioners’ separate places of residence and alleged absence from the scene constituted a plea of alibi and could not be conclusively determined on the basis of defence materials in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the petitioners participated through common intention, whether the alleged harassment had the requisite proximity to the death, and whether the prosecution evidence was credible were matters for the Trial Court after recording evidence.

Since the case did not fall within the recognised categories warranting quashing, interference at the threshold was impermissible.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was therefore found to be without merit and was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and would not influence the Trial Court, which was directed to decide the case independently in accordance with law.