Quashing is unwarranted where the FIR discloses prima facie offences and involves disputed factual defences.

The prosecutrix, a private teacher, lodged a written report on 20 March 2023 alleging that, while she was proceeding to school at approximately 8:00 a.m., the petitioners attempted to outrage her modesty and abused her in filthy language. Police Station City Kotwali, District Satna, registered Crime No. 206/2023 for offences under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and subsequently filed a charge-sheet before the Trial Court.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, contending that the allegations were false, motivated by an existing dispute, and did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. They also relied on an alibi, documentary material, the first petitioner’s civil-services examination commitments, and the second petitioner’s medical condition.

The State and the complainant opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR, statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses, and the investigation material disclosed a prima facie case, while the plea of alibi and other defences involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication at trial.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners disclosed a prima facie commission of offences under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC so as to justify continuation of the prosecution?

2. Whether the High Court could, in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, adjudicate the petitioners’ plea of alibi and other disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. It examined the allegations with reference to Sections 354(A), 354(B), 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning sexual harassment or assault on a woman’s modesty, obscene abuse, criminal intimidation and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The governing principle applied was that, at the stage of considering a quashing petition, the Court must determine whether the FIR and investigation material disclose a prima facie case; it should not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, assess the probable defence, or decide disputed factual issues such as alibi.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioners and attributed definite roles to them, rather than making vague or omnibus accusations.

On that basis, the Court held that prima facie material existed indicating the essential ingredients of the alleged IPC offences. The petitioners’ assertions that they were falsely implicated, were absent from the place of occurrence, and possessed documentary and medical material in support of their defence required evaluation of evidence.

Such disputed factual matters, including the plea of alibi, could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and were matters for the Trial Court after evidence was led.

The existence of a completed investigation and filed charge-sheet further did not warrant quashing where the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case.

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings was therefore dismissed.