Quashing is unwarranted where the charge-sheet discloses prima facie involvement and disputed defenses require trial.

The petitioner, Ajay Saxena, an Assistant Grade-III at Janpad Panchayat Moman Badodiya, sought quashing of FIR dated 19.03.2022, registered as Crime No. 82/2022 for offences under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC, and the consequential criminal proceedings in RCT No. 549/2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur

The prosecution case arose from an inquiry into the alleged disbursement of approximately ₹8.80 lakh under the PM Awas Yojana to 11 ineligible beneficiaries instead of eligible candidates.

The charge-sheet implicated the then Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner, the Sarpanch, the Panchayat Secretary and a village assistant; proceedings against the Chief Executive Officer were closed due to his death

The petitioner contended that he had neither verified the beneficiaries nor been authorised or obligated to do so, that he was not given an opportunity during the departmental inquiry, and that there was no material showing his involvement in the alleged cheating

The State opposed the application

Whether the FIR and the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings

Whether the petitioner’s asserted lack of responsibility, absence of mens rea, and alleged defects in the inquiry constituted grounds for exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings

Whether the case fell within any of the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal warranting quashing of criminal proceedings

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, concerning cheating and acts done in furtherance of common intention

Relying on State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed, inter alia, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and collected evidence disclose no offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; where continuation is legally barred; or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide

At the quashing stage, disputed factual defences and questions concerning mens rea ordinarily fall within the province of the trial court

The Court examined the charge-sheet, 31 accompanying documents and statements of 28 witnesses, including beneficiaries who allegedly did not receive the amounts due under the scheme

It noted that the CEO-cum-Authorised Officer of the District Panchayat had found the petitioner responsible for the disbursement to ineligible candidates, thereby providing material requiring trial.

The petitioner’s assertions that he was not responsible for verification, that another officer had performed the verification, and that he lacked mens rea were treated as matters of defence rather than grounds for pre-trial adjudication

The District Prosecution Officer’s view that mens rea was absent did not justify quashing because that issue was to be determined by the trial court

Since the allegations and investigation materials were not inherently absurd, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, none of the Bhajan Lal categories was attracted

Finding no justification to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023/Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the petition