Inherent jurisdiction cannot quash proceedings where the FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie cognizable offences.

Respondent No. 2, Kamal Tiwari, lodged a written complaint alleging that the petitioner, Sohel Ali, initially demanded ₹1.5 lakh and retained his son’s Baleno car. It was further alleged that, on 20 February 2024, the petitioner and other accused intercepted the complainant and his companions, assaulted them, robbed cash and mobile phones, threatened them with a pistol-like weapon, subjected the complainant’s wife to indecent acts, and wrongfully confined them at a farmhouse from 21 to 23 February 2024. During the alleged confinement, documents concerning the sale of the complainant’s house and four cheques of ₹4 lakh each were allegedly obtained by force. The FIR was registered at Police Station Rakhi for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342, 392, 354 and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police filed Charge-Sheet No. 132/2025, and the Magistrate took cognizance in Criminal Case No. 47362/2025.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential proceedings. He alleged mala fide prosecution, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of territorial jurisdiction, non-registration of his earlier complaint, and false implication as a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from dishonoured cheques. The State opposed the petition, contending that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigation had produced sufficient prima facie material to warrant trial.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order were liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 on the ground that the allegations did not disclose the commission of cognizable offences or were inherently improbable?

2. Whether the petitioner’s grounds concerning delay in lodging the FIR, territorial jurisdiction, prior disputes, alleged non-registration of his complaint, and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justified interference at the threshold?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the inherent jurisdiction previously exercised under Section 482 of the CrPC, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose an offence or where continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Relying on Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court reiterated that, at the quashing stage, it cannot assess the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, conduct a mini-trial, or usurp the investigative or trial jurisdiction; it must principally examine whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The Court also relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 2 September 2025, which permits quashing where the accused’s material is of sterling and unimpeachable quality, conclusively defeats the prosecution case, remains effectively unrebutted, and demonstrates that continuation of the trial would be an abuse of process.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations of assault, robbery, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement and indecent acts against the complainant’s wife, followed by the forcible procurement of documents and cheques. These allegations, taken at face value and considered alongside the material collected during investigation and the filed charge-sheet, disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds for proceeding against the petitioner.

The petitioner’s objections regarding delay, territorial jurisdiction, the alleged counterblast, prior monetary disputes and pending cheque-dishonour proceedings involved disputed questions of fact and matters of defence. Their truthfulness, evidentiary value and impact could be assessed only by the trial court after evidence was led; they did not conclusively establish that the prosecution was groundless or manifestly mala fide. Since the case did not satisfy the exceptional conditions governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court declined to interfere.

Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, Charge-Sheet No. 132/2025, the cognizance order dated 10 December 2025 and Criminal Case No. 47362/2025 was dismissed as devoid of merit.