Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Alleged Physical Relationship After Marriage Promise, Orders Police To File Final Report Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, such that the FIR should not be quashed at the threshold.

The court held

The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie commission of a cognizable offence and declined to quash it.

It also directed

The criminal original petition was dismissed, and the first respondent was directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within three months of receiving the order, if it had not already been filed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered on the complaint of the second respondent, alleging offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

p. 2

The complaint alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the complainant, had a physical relationship with her, and later refused to marry her; it also alleged that he knew she was married and subsequently divorced.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner denied the allegations and sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

p. 3

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was almost complete.

p. 3

The order refers to Crime No. 25 of 2025 in parts of the record but directs completion of the investigation in Crime No. 25 of 2026.

pp. 1–2, 6

02Issues

i.Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, such that the FIR should not be quashed at the threshold.

p. 3, 6

ii.Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR while the investigation was ongoing.

pp. 1–2, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent power on the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the principle in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, that proceedings should not be stifled at the initial stage where the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence; the Court should not assess whether the material will ultimately secure a conviction.

pp. 3–4

It also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which states that quashing an FIR is exceptional, an FIR need not contain every detail, and courts should ordinarily permit an ongoing investigation to proceed where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

pp. 5–6

The FIR alleged offences under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner that prima facie attracted the alleged offences and required investigation in depth.

p. 3

Applying the principles in Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to evaluate the merits of the allegations or determine whether they would ultimately lead to conviction, observing that the FIR need not be an exhaustive account and that the investigation should not be interrupted at this stage.

pp. 3–6

The prosecution’s submission that the investigation was nearly complete further supported allowing it to proceed.

p. 3