Investigation of structured institutional misappropriation cannot be prematurely quashed if FIR discloses cognizable offences.

The petitioners filed a batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking to quash FIR No. 0314/2025 registered at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur, for offences under Sections 316(4) (Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.) and 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The FIR alleges a systematic misappropriation and diversion of 250 bags (approx. 6,250 kg) of milk powder from the Udaipur Dairy Union warehouse on July 23, 2025, causing a loss of ₹25 lakhs.

The petitioners include the Chairman of the Cooperative Sangh, a transporter, and other officials who claimed either a lack of specific allegations, routine involvement in business, or lack of knowledge regarding the conspiracy.

1. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) should be exercised to quash an FIR when the allegations disclose a cognizable offence of systematic misappropriation.

2. Whether the absence of a specific named role or a plea of innocence by a transporter/official is sufficient grounds to stifle an investigation at its nascent stage.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It relied heavily on the principles established in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which dictate that quashing should be "exception and a rarity" and that courts must not thwart investigations where a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed.

The court also noted the ingredients of Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the BNS regarding criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.

The Court observed that the FIR and underlying complaint delineate a structured sequence of events involving the misuse of official machinery and the clandestine diversion of goods for wrongful gain.

Justice Farjand Ali reasoned that the allegations suggest "organized black-marketing" and a breach of institutional integrity, which necessitates a full-fledged investigation to ascertain the precise roles of each accused.

The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding lack of specific roles, noting that investigation is the correct stage to unearth such details and that pleas of "ordinary course of business" or "lack of knowledge" are matters of defense to be evaluated during trial, not in a quashing petition.

For petitioner Vipin Sharma, the Public Prosecutor conceded that no offence was proved; thus, his petition was treated distinctly.

The petition of Vipin Sharma was disposed of with a direction that no coercive measures be taken without prior notice.

The Court granted the remaining petitioners 30 days of protection from arrest to submit a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to explain their versions of the facts, which the investigating agency must consider independently. All stay petitions were vacated.