Inherent powers to quash FIR cannot be exercised when investigation prima facie discloses cognizable offences.

The applicant, a property broker, allegedly induced the complainant to purchase land in Village Meghpar for Rs. 80,00,000/-.

Following the applicant's instructions, the complainant transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- to the bank account of the property owner’s daughter-in-law on 18.10.2025.

Investigation revealed that the applicant had an independent agreement with the owner for Rs. 61,00,000/- and had used the complainant's Rs. 5,00,000/- as part of the sale consideration for a transaction concluded in favor of a third party, Shri Krishna Engineering.

The applicant sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11202038260838 of 2026 registered under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, claiming it was a civil dispute.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, coupled with the investigative findings, prima facie constitute cognizable criminal offences or merely a civil/commercial dispute.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the FIR at the initial stage of investigation.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court.

The landmark precedent State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which established seven illustrative categories where quashing is permissible, such as when allegations fail to disclose a cognizable offence or are manifestly malicious.

Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning criminal breach of trust.

The court noted that the complainant's money (Rs. 5,00,000/-) was misappropriated by the applicant to satisfy his own contractual obligations toward the owner for a sale to a third party.

The court reasoned that such conduct prima facie constitutes "cheating and criminal breach of trust".

Since the investigation was at a "nascent stage," the court declined to conduct a "meticulous appreciation of the evidence" or resolve "disputed questions of fact," as doing so would overstep the limits of its inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court refused to exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS and rejected the application, allowing the police investigation to proceed.