Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Refused Where Cognizable Offenses and Disputed Questions of Fact Require Trial.

On March 14, 2025, during Holi, Anil Yadav died following an altercation with Arpit Agrawal (the petitioner's son) and associates. Initially, an FIR (No. 202/2025) was registered for murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the son and others.

While the trial (S.T. No. 76/2025) was pending, the petitioner was implicated nine months later via a supplementary charge-sheet (No. 276-A/2025) on allegations of causing disappearance of evidence to screen his son.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheets, and the trial court’s orders framing charges and rejecting his discharge application under Section 250 of the BNSS, arguing that his name was absent from the initial records and he was being harassed solely due to his relationship with the co-accused.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings, including the supplementary charge-sheet, should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS due to delayed implication and alleged lack of evidence.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to interfere in a trial that has already reached an advanced stage with several witnesses examined.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in "rarest of rare cases" as established in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR Online 2021 SC 192.

Courts must not thwart investigations into cognizable offences unless no offence is disclosed, and should not embark upon an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at the quashing stage.

The Court observed that the FIR and charge-sheets prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, specifically with regard to the petitioner allegedly concealing evidence to protect his son by framing the death as a road accident.

Although the petitioner argued that his name appeared late and CCTV footage did not show direct involvement in the murder, the Court noted that prosecution witnesses (Kali @ Anchal Das and others) identified his presence at the spot.

The Court reasoned that the delay in implication and the sufficiency of evidence involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

The Court highlighted that the trial was at an advanced stage, with 13 witnesses already examined, making judicial interference at this juncture inappropriate.

The petition was dismissed and the court declined to quash the FIR No. 202/2025, supplementary charge-sheet No. 276-A/2025, or the orders framing charges and rejecting discharge.