Inherent jurisdiction cannot quash proceedings where disputed facts require evidentiary appreciation.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 19/2021 registered at Mahila Thana, Durg, for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, along with the consequential criminal proceedings, cognizance order and framing of charges.

Petitioner No. 1 disputed the existence of a valid marriage with Respondent No. 2, contending that there had been no customary solemnization, shared household or social representation as husband and wife.

He further alleged that Petitioners Nos. 2–5 lived separately and had been implicated through vague and omnibus allegations.

The FIR was registered on 04.02.2021; investigation culminated in a charge-sheet, cognizance was taken, and charges under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC were framed.

By the time of the present petition, the trial had commenced and Respondent No. 2’s examination-in-chief had been recorded, with only cross-examination remaining.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the prosecution.

2. Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, adjudicate the petitioners’ disputed factual defences concerning the alleged marriage, separate residence, inconsistent statements and credibility of the complainant.

3. Whether the case fell within the exceptional circumstances justifying quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which may be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of court or secure the ends of justice, but not to conduct a mini-trial.

It relied on Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., holding that proceedings should not be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence, though patently absurd or inherently improbable allegations may be quashed.

Under Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court cannot assess the reliability or genuineness of allegations, appreciate evidence or ordinarily scuttle criminal proceedings at the threshold.

Relying also on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the principles in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, the Court held that quashing on the basis of defence material is justified only where material of sterling and impeccable quality completely demolishes the prosecution case and cannot be effectively refuted.

The petitioners’ reliance on the abuse-of-process principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal was therefore subject to these limitations.

The Court held that the FIR contained allegations requiring consideration against the petitioners and that the Investigating Officer had collected supporting material before filing the charge-sheet.

Cognizance had been taken, charges had been framed and the trial had substantially progressed, including recording of the complainant’s examination-in-chief.

The petitioners’ contentions regarding absence of a valid marriage, separate residence, inconsistent complaints and the complainant’s marital status involved disputed questions of fact and the evidentiary value of documents.

Determining those matters would require examination and cross-examination of witnesses and appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The defence material did not conclusively and irrebuttably demolish the prosecution case, nor did the allegations fall within an exceptional category warranting interference under the applicable quashing principles.

It held that no ground was made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly since the charge-sheet had been filed, charges framed and the trial commenced.

Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 19/2021 and the consequential criminal proceedings was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the present petition and would not influence the trial court’s adjudication on the merits.