Quashing an FIR is unwarranted at the initial investigation stage when specific allegations raise disputed facts.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, before her marriage to petitioner No. 4, the petitioners concealed his earlier marriage and divorce, and that she was subsequently subjected to dowry-related harassment and physical and mental cruelty.

She further alleged that the mistreatment continued during her pregnancy and after the birth of her daughter, and that she was sent back to India.

An FIR was registered against the petitioners under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, relying in part on a New Jersey marriage certificate and disputing the allegations, particularly against the relatives of petitioner No. 4.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioners.

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed at the investigation stage in light of the petitioners’ reliance on a New Jersey marriage certificate and their dispute about where the marriage took place.

2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners, including the relatives of petitioner No. 4, justified quashing the FIR at this stage.

Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS formed the basis of the FIR.

Relying on Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [(2021) 19 SCC 401], the Court stated that, at the FIR and investigation stage, a High Court should not meticulously examine allegations or assess evidence as if conducting a trial; the power to interfere must be exercised with due circumspection.

The Court declined to treat the New Jersey marriage certificate as conclusive because the place of marriage was disputed and the complaint alleged that the marriage took place at Pulgaon, Durg; the certificate alone did not establish a basis to quash the FIR.

The FIR contained allegations concerning concealment of the earlier marriage and divorce, dowry demands, and subsequent cruelty, while the investigation remained at an initial stage.

In those circumstances, assessing the disputed facts or the evidence concerning individual petitioners would require an impermissible inquiry at the quashing stage.

It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and left the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.