Quashing is unwarranted where prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case requiring trial.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of the order dated 01.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, in CBI Case No. 10 of 2024, whereby his discharge application was rejected, along with quashing of the criminal proceedings for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 447, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The case concerned Khasra Nos. 436 Ga and 436 Ja, Village Johari, Dehradun. Their original areas of 0.244 hectares and 0.489 hectares were allegedly increased in the revenue records to 1.244 hectares and 1.489 hectares, respectively.

Powers of Attorney were executed in 2001, pursuant to which eleven sale deeds were executed in favour of the applicant and his wife.

The applicant contended that the manipulation had occurred before his purchase, and that the investigation attributed the forgery to Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal, on the basis of the FSL report and custody of the original revenue records.

He also relied on the exoneration of subsequent purchasers and an earlier SIT inquiry allegedly implicating the sellers and revenue officials.

The CBI opposed the application, submitting that the applicant was not a bona fide third-party purchaser because he had executed five of the impugned sale deeds in favour of his wife under a Power of Attorney and was directly connected with the transactions during the period of alleged manipulation.

Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the applicant for criminal conspiracy, cheating, trespass and forgery-related offences, warranting continuation of the prosecution rather than discharge.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the order rejecting discharge and the pending criminal proceedings when the prosecution case required evaluation at trial.

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 SCC 531, the Court reiterated that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution, principally to give effect to orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court held that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage; the Court should not conduct a roving inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, and should intervene only where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence.

At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court is concerned with the existence of a prima facie case or grave suspicion, and not with a definitive assessment of the prosecution evidence.

The Court found that the alleged enlargement of the areas in the revenue records directly benefited the applicant and his wife.

The execution of multiple sale deeds, including five deeds executed by the applicant himself in favour of his wife, prima facie connected him with the transactions through which the allegedly inflated areas were transferred.

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that a buyer would not conspire with sellers or revenue officials, observing that the buyer could be the direct beneficiary of an increase in the recorded land area.

Whether the manipulation preceded the sale deeds, whether the applicant knew of it, and whether he participated in the conspiracy were matters requiring appreciation of evidence at trial rather than determination in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

The subsequent purchasers stood on a different factual footing and their exoneration did not establish parity with the applicant, who was involved in the original transactions.

Since a prima facie case was disclosed and the charge-sheet had been filed after cognizance, the High Court held that it could not enter into the merits or test the veracity of the prosecution case at that stage.

It held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against him and that the allegations raised sufficient suspicion to warrant a proper trial.

The High Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, dismissed the application, and refused to quash either the order dated 01.08.2026 rejecting discharge or the criminal proceedings in CBI Case No. 10 of 2024.