Investigation at Nascent Stage Cannot Be Quashed Where Allegations Prima Facie Disclose Cognizable Offence.

The applicant, Shubham, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the quashment of FIR Crime No. 555/2025 registered at P.S. Neelganga, Ujjain.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 115(2) (voluntary hurt), 296(b) (obscene acts/songs), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant contended that the incident was a mere road accident involving his scooter and the complainant’s motorcycle, claiming he was falsely implicated due to prior enmity and citing hotel CCTV footage as evidence of the complainant chasing him.

Conversely, the State and the objector presented evidence of a physical scuffle, heated exchanges confirmed by witnesses, and photographs of injuries sustained by the complainant.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR at the investigation stage when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

2. Whether the defenses raised by the applicant, such as CCTV footage and claims of a mere accident, are sufficient to terminate criminal proceedings before a full investigation.

Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The landmark principles established in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992) and reaffirmed in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021), clarifying that courts must not trench upon the lawful power of investigative agencies when an FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

The test from Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988), which dictates that a prosecution should only be quashed at the initial stage if uncontroverted allegations fail to establish a prima facie case or if chances of conviction are bleak.

The Court observed that while the applicant claimed the incident was an accident, the material on record—including witness statements and vehicle damage—suggested a physical scuffle and heated exchanges.

The Court noted that the investigation was at a "nascent stage" and the complainant’s injuries were supported by photographic evidence.

Following the Neeharika precedent, the Judge reasoned that the Court should not enter into the merits of the allegations or perform a mini-trial regarding the CCTV footage at this stage.

Since the FIR and surrounding material prima facie showed the "complicity of the applicant" in a cognizable offence and noted his criminal antecedents, the Court found no grounds to conclude that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was dismissed.