Quashing is unwarranted where the record prima facie establishes fraudulent intent from inception.

The applicant sought to quash an FIR registered at Kapurai Police Station under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with the charge-sheets and ensuing criminal proceedings.

He claimed that an oral arrangement to obtain a Polish work visa for the first informant had failed for technical reasons and that the dispute was essentially contractual.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had taken money from the first informant and other victims on similar promises, without procuring visas.

The investigation had concluded and charge-sheets had been filed; the applicant also had other antecedents of a similar nature.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheets and criminal proceedings disclosed grounds for quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the alleged failure to procure work visas was merely an unfulfilled promise, and whether the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust could be considered together at the quashing stage.

Whether the applicant’s similar antecedents affected the application for quashing.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked for quashing the FIR and proceedings. The alleged offences were under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court considered whether the FIR and investigation material prima facie made out the alleged offences; it held that the question whether cheating and criminal breach of trust could coexist was for the trial court to consider at the charge-framing stage. Relying on Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., the Court noted that antecedents alone could not justify denying relief under Section 528, but distinguished that principle where the record independently disclosed the alleged offences.

The material indicated that the first informant paid Rs. 38,500 for a promised Polish work visa, after which the applicant abruptly said the plan was cancelled, without an apparent justification.

The record also referred to other victims who had paid money on similar promises and received no visas. The Court considered this conduct sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to indicate an intention to cheat from the outset.

It left the applicant’s contention that cheating and criminal breach of trust could not coexist to the trial court at the charge-framing stage. Although the Court accepted that antecedents alone were not a basis to refuse relief, it found the investigation material independently supported the alleged offences.

It declined to quash the FIR, charge-sheets or proceedings, finding that the record prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences; the issue concerning the coexistence of the offences was left for consideration at charge-framing.