Quashing of FIR Refused Where Allegations Prima Facie Disclose Cognizable Sexual Offences Under BNS and POCSO.

The petitioner sought the quashing of Charge-sheet No. 46/2026 and the order of charges dated 17.04.2026 filed under Sections 62, 64, and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the POCSO Act

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner kidnapped and attempted to forcibly disrobe and sexually assault a minor victim in a forest area on 09.11.2025

The petitioner contended the FIR was a malicious fabrication by the victim’s family to take vengeance against him for intervening in the victim’s inter-faith marriage

He further argued there was a two-month delay in lodging the FIR and pointed to contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the grounds of being malicious or failing to disclose a prima facie case

2. Whether the High Court can conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or resolve disputed questions of fact regarding contradictions in witness statements during a quashing petition

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

The landmark principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, which established that quashing is permissible only if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, holding that the power to quash must be exercised sparingly and only in "exceptional cases"

Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P., which settled that disputed questions of fact and the reliability of allegations are matters for trial, not a mini-trial at the quashing stage

The Court observed that for the purpose of a quashing petition, it must only examine whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence when taken at face value

While the petitioner alleged the case was born of communal vengeance and highlighted contradictions in the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement (where she alleged full intercourse versus earlier claims of attempt), the Court held that these are matters of evidence and "disputed questions of fact"

The Court found that the material collected—including the victim’s written complaint, MLC report, and witness statements—indicated a prima facie case

It rejected the petitioner’s claim of parity with a co-accused (who received interim relief), noting that the co-accused was an advocate with no direct allegations, whereas the petitioner faced specific allegations of physical assault

The High Court is not a trial court and cannot undertake a "roving enquiry" into the admissibility of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed independently without being influenced by the observations made in this order