Petitions to quash under Section 528 BNSS are not maintainable when prima facie allegations require trial and evidence.

The petitioner sought to quash Charge-sheet No. 09/2026 and the resulting criminal proceedings (Session Trial No. 05/2026) arising from Crime No. 586/2025.

The complainant alleged that on October 21, 2025, several individuals, including relatives of the petitioner, assaulted her family with rods and fists after a dispute regarding children burning crackers.

Although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, his name was included during the investigation.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was a "counterblast" to a separate FIR (No. 585/2025) lodged by the co-accused against the complainant’s family.

At the time of the hearing, charges had already been framed by the trial court.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings when charges have already been framed and the dispute involves factual contentions of a case and counter-case.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 CrPC], which governs the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The Court applied the settled principle that an investigation should not be "shut out at the threshold" if allegations have substance, and that the Court must not "kill a stillborn child" by stifling appropriate prosecution unless compelling circumstances exist.

At the quashing stage, it must only test whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish an offence without embarking on an inquiry into the reliability or probability of the evidence.

The Court observed that while the petitioner's name was absent from the FIR, it was subsequently added during the police investigation based on evidence collected.

The Court found that since the trial had already commenced and charges were framed, the petition involved purely factual disputes—specifically the "case and counter-case" nature of the incident—which require determination through the examination of prosecution witnesses rather than summary dismissal.

The Court reasoned that evaluating the truth of the allegations or the petitioner's claim of false implication as a "counterblast" would exceed the limited scope of its inherent jurisdiction at this stage.

The High Court dismissed the petition, declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings.