Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Refused as Initial Withdrawal of Complaint Does Not Extinguish Cognizable, Non-Compoundable Offences

The petitioner, a Railway Loco Pilot, was accused of offences under Sections 452, 354, 294, 506(B), and 323 of the IPC following an incident on 01.01.2020 near the complainant's house.

Initially, on 02.01.2020, the victim submitted a handwritten application stating she did not wish to pursue legal action, leading the police to close the matter in the Roznama Sanha.

Four months later, the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, alleging continued harassment and political rivalry, which resulted in the registration of FIR No. 43/2020.

The petitioner moved for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, arguing that the prosecution suppressed the initial withdrawal documents and that the case was mala fide.

The Trial Court (JMFC Dondilohara) and the Revisional Court (ASJ Balod) both rejected the discharge application, leading to this petition under Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that the complainant had initially withdrawn the complaint and settled the matter.

2. Whether the allegations against the petitioner are inherently improbable or motivated by political rivalry sufficient to warrant the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [equivalent to Section 482 CrPC], which governs the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the landmark precedent State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which establishes specific categories where a court may quash proceedings, such as when allegations are inherently improbable or attended with mala fide.

The court applied the principle that for cognizable and non-compoundable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a private settlement or initial withdrawal does not automatically extinguish criminal liability.

The Court reasoned that at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, it cannot engage in a "meticulous appreciation of evidence" or resolve "disputed factual questions".

While the petitioner claimed the complainant initially withdrew the application, the Trial Court found evidence suggesting subsequent harassment and pressure, which led to the belated FIR.

Since the offences—specifically Sections 354 and 452 IPC—are cognizable and non-compoundable, the Court held that a mere initial settlement cannot terminate the proceedings at the threshold.

The Court observed that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of offences.

It distinguished the Bhajan Lal precedent by stating the facts of this case required a trial to adjudicate the veracity of the claims regarding political rivalry and the suppression of exculpatory documents.

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, or the orders rejecting discharge, affirming that the existence of a prima facie case precludes the use of inherent powers to stall the prosecution.