Quashing is unwarranted where complaint allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence.

The petitioner-husband sought to quash the FIR registered against him under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on a complaint by his wife.

He argued that the complaint arose from a business dispute, followed his own complaint alleging forgery and misappropriation, and did not disclose the ingredients of the offence.

The wife alleged that on 8 May 2026 he abused, threatened and physically assaulted her at their school premises in front of employees; she also referred to CCTV footage and prior incidents of abuse.

The High Court considered the complaint and the parties’ submissions on the petition to quash the proceedings.

Whether the complaint’s allegations prima facie disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 85 of the BNS, such that the FIR should not be quashed.

Whether the Court, in exercising its quashing jurisdiction, should assess the merits and evidentiary strength of the allegations or permit the police to investigate them.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, which states that, when considering a request to quash an FIR, the Court determines whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence; it does not assess their merits, and the investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed.

The alleged offence was under Section 85 of the BNS.

The Court held that the complaint’s allegations—including the alleged assault, threats and other instances of abuse—prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offence.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to evaluate the competing accounts or determine whether supporting material would ultimately establish the allegations.

The availability and significance of evidence, including the parties’ videographs, were matters for police investigation.

It permitted both parties to provide relevant records, including videographs, and directed the police to consider the materials and file an appropriate report.

The Court expressed no view on the merits, leaving all contentions open.