Quashing Is Unwarranted Where Case-Diary Materials Disclose a Prima Facie Offence.

The complainant alleged that on 31 March 2024 the petitioners and others trespassed onto her land, cut tree branches, assaulted her and outraged her modesty.

After her complaint was initially recorded as a general diary, she approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC; the police thereafter registered Debra Police Station Case No. 242/2024 under Sections 447/323/354B/509/34 IPC.

The petitioners denied the allegations, asserted that the complainant’s side had entered their property, and relied on an earlier land-related writ proceeding and their own police complaints to characterise the case as fabricated and retaliatory.

The complainant and the State opposed quashing, submitting that the investigation had collected material, including witness statements and the complainant’s statement, supporting a prima facie case.

The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the criminal proceeding should be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the petitioners’ claim that the complaint was false, retaliatory and connected to a land dispute.

Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case sufficient for the criminal proceeding to continue.

Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, confers inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but that power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court held, among other things, that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage; a court considering quashing should not assess the reliability or genuineness of the allegations; and the inquiry is whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not whether they are ultimately proved.

The alleged offences were under Sections 447, 323, 354B, 509 and 34 IPC.

The Court recognised the parties’ underlying dispute concerning adjacent land and noted the earlier writ proceeding, but held that the present application concerned criminal allegations rather than determination of the parties’ land rights.

It found that the case diary contained material supporting a prima facie case against the petitioners.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to determine the truth of the competing accounts or to evaluate the evidence at the quashing stage; it concluded that the existence of material supporting the alleged offences made it inappropriate to terminate the proceeding at its inception.

The criminal revision was dismissed; any connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and the case diary was directed to be returned to the State’s counsel.