Quashing of counter-FIR and subsequent charge sheet where proceedings are found to be malicious and retaliatory.

The Petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 327/2024 and the resulting Charge Sheet No. 266/2024 filed under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Petitioner No.1 had previously lodged FIR No. 326/2024 against Respondent No.2 at 04:40 PM on 26.07.2024 alleging assault.

The impugned FIR was registered by Respondent No.2 just ten minutes later, at 04:50 PM, arising from the same incident.

The Petitioners contended the FIR was a malicious counterblast, noting that medical evidence showed injuries to Petitioner No.1 and that the police suppressed CCTV footage seized from the scene.

1. Whether the allegations in the impugned FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intention.

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), regarding the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the landmark principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which permit quashing of FIRs if the allegations are absurd, improbable, or if the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

The Court observed that the negligible ten-minute interval between the Petitioners' FIR and the Respondent's counter-FIR strongly supported the claim that the latter was a retaliatory "counterblast".

Upon reviewing the case diary, the court found the allegations against the Petitioners to be general and "omnibus" in nature, lacking specific overt acts or corroboration by independent witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court noted that while Petitioner No.1 had documented medical injuries and a weapon was seized from the Respondent, the prosecution failed to produce or rely upon the CCTV footage it had seized from Respondent No.2’s residence.

This omission, combined with the haste of the investigation, led the Court to conclude that the proceedings were recorded with mala fide intent and fell squarely within the prohibitive categories defined in Bhajan Lal.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 327/2024, the Charge Sheet No. 266/2024, the cognizance order dated 29.07.2024, and all further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 13726/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.