Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Relative’s Alleged ₹60 Lakh Property Sale After Owner’s Death

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR in Crime No. 87 of 2026 should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The court held

The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and that it would not interfere with the investigation at the threshold.

It also directed

The petition to quash Crime No. 87 of 2026 was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 87 of 2026, registered against him under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

p. 2

The complaint alleged that, after the owner of the property had died, the petitioner and other accused suppressed the death and sold the properties to third parties for approximately ₹60,00,000.

p. 2

The petitioner denied committing the alleged offences and contended that the FIR lacked a basis.

p. 2

The State submitted that the investigation was nearly complete and that only the filing of the final report remained.

p. 3

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR in Crime No. 87 of 2026 should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

pp. 1–2, 6

ii.Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting completion of the police investigation rather than judicial interference at that stage.

p. 3, 6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

p. 1

The Court applied the principle that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia and need not set out every detail; while investigation is ongoing, the Court should not assess the merits of the allegations or prematurely foreclose the investigation where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

pp. 3–6

Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, the Court stated that proceedings should not be quashed where the allegations, taken as pleaded, disclose the ingredients of an offence; the Court should not conduct a merits evaluation at the threshold.

pp. 3–4

It also relied on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principles that quashing is exceptional, investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed, and the relevant threshold inquiry is whether the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

pp. 4–6

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 465 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The FIR contained specific allegations that the petitioner and others sold property after the owner’s death while suppressing that fact, allegedly for ₹60,00,000.

p. 2, 6

The Court considered those allegations sufficient, at this preliminary stage, to disclose a prima facie cognizable offence requiring investigation.

p. 3

Given that the investigation was nearly complete, it declined to assess the petitioner’s denial or determine whether the evidence would ultimately support conviction; those matters were not suitable for resolution in a quashing petition while the investigation remained pending.

pp. 3–6