Mere road accident without evidence of gross negligence does not constitute a cognizable offence under BNSS.

The Petitioner, a practicing advocate, was driving her car with the Informant (Opposite Party No. 2) on April 5, 2025. Near Deokaranpur School, the vehicle veered off a sharp blind curve into a field, causing injuries to both occupants.

Nearly seven months later, on November 3, 2025, the Informant lodged an FIR at Bargaon P.S. (Case No. 302/2025) under Sections 281 (rash driving), 125(a), and 125(b) (endangering life/safety) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR on the grounds that the incident was a mere accident lacking criminal negligence and that the FIR was an abuse of process due to inordinate delay.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, satisfy the essential ingredients of rash or negligent driving under the BNS to justify criminal investigation

2. Whether the failure to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, coupled with an unexplained seven-month delay in lodging the FIR, warrants the quashing of proceedings

The Court primarily applied Sections 281 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding rash driving and act endangering life.

The Court relied on Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which permits a preliminary enquiry for offences punishable with 3-7 years' imprisonment to ascertain a prima facie case.

The Court followed the precedent in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), emphasizing that Section 173(3) BNSS is a safeguard against frivolous FIRs.

The Court applied the "abuse of process" doctrine from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) to quash proceedings where FIR allegations fail to disclose a cognizable offence, and referenced Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) regarding the necessity of preliminary enquiries in cases of abnormal delay.

The Court reasoned that criminal liability for negligence requires a degree of recklessness or "culpable disregard for consequences," which is distinct from a mere error of judgment or an unfortunate mishap.

Examining the FIR, the Court found a total absence of specific details such as excessive speed or traffic violations; the fact that the accident occurred at a known "blind curve" suggested a loss of control rather than criminal intent.

The Court highlighted the seven-month delay in reporting the incident and noted that under the new Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the police should have conducted a preliminary enquiry given the delay and the nature of the alleged offence, rather than mechanically registering the FIR.

The Court concluded that since the foundational facts did not meet the high threshold of "criminal rashness," allowing the investigation to proceed would subject the Petitioner to unnecessary harassment and constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashing of Bargaon P.S. Case No. 302 dated 03.11.2025 and all consequential proceedings. Any prior interim orders were vacated.