Quashing under Section 482 is unwarranted where FIR and witness statements disclose prima facie offences.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings in PR Case No. 115/2019 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hatsingimari.

The proceedings arose from Sukchor P.S. Case No. 73/2018, registered on 12 July 2018, alleging that the petitioners obstructed Respondent No. 2 on a road, assaulted him, attempted to attack him with daggers, and snatched school documents in his possession.

The case was initially registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 305 and 511 IPC, while the charge-sheet referred to Sections 341, 323, 379, 307 and 511 IPC.

The petitioners contended that the case was a counterblast to an earlier FIR lodged by the petitioners’ side against Respondent No. 2’s son and others for alleged sexual assault of the petitioners’ minor sister, registered as Sukchor P.S. Case No. 72/2018 under Sections 120B, 341 and 354 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Respondent No. 2 disputed the allegation of mala fides and stated that the incident arose from a dispute concerning the formation of the Managing Committee of a school where he was the head teacher and Member-Secretary.

The police investigated the matter, recorded witness statements, and submitted a charge-sheet.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings disclosed the commission of offences so as to warrant quashing under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the criminal case was instituted as a malicious counterblast or to wreak personal vengeance, thereby attracting the principles governing quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Whether disputed factual matters, including the alleged assault, snatching of documents, and motive behind the FIR, should be adjudicated in a petition for quashing or left for consideration by the trial court.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, referred to alongside Section 528 BNSS, which may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice, but not to conduct a detailed evaluation of disputed evidence at the pre-trial stage.

The Court relied on the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, concerning quashing where the allegations disclose no offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted maliciously for an improper purpose.

At the quashing stage, the Court must examine whether the allegations, read with the investigation material, disclose a prima facie offence; questions requiring assessment of witness credibility, motive, or competing factual versions are ordinarily matters for trial.

The Court examined the FIR, charge-sheet, and witness statements contained in the trial court record and found that they disclosed allegations of obstruction, assault, attempted attack with a dagger, and taking away documents.

Accordingly, it could not be held that no offence was made out or that the case was one of “no evidence whatsoever”.

Although the petitioners alleged that the FIR was a counterblast to the earlier POCSO-related case, the Court held that the issue of mala fide and personal vengeance could not be conclusively determined on the materials before it.

The competing account advanced by Respondent No. 2 concerning the school-management dispute was also not without basis.

Since determination of the parties’ factual claims required scrutiny of the evidence and consideration of the matter at the stage of charge, the trial court was considered better placed to decide whether the prosecution should proceed.

It held that the FIR, charge-sheet, and witness statements prima facie disclosed offences and that the allegation of a malicious counterblast was insufficiently established to justify quashing.

Declining to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, the Court dismissed the criminal petition, leaving the matter open for consideration by the trial court at the stage of charge.