Quashing under Section 482 is unwarranted where specific cruelty allegations are prima facie corroborated.

The marriage between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12 May 2022.

Respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and demanded dowry of ₹5,00,000.

She alleged that, after petitioner No.1 left her at her parental home on 22 October 2022, both petitioners visited her parental home on 5 November 2022, demanded ₹5,00,000 for taking her back, and threatened that petitioner No.1 would marry another woman if the amount was not arranged.

An FIR was registered on 20 December 2022 as Crime No.656/2022 at Police Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 482 of the CrPC.

The State and respondent No.2 opposed quashing, relying on the specific allegations, statements of independent witnesses, and evidence that ₹50,000 had been transferred by respondent No.2’s father to petitioner No.1.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 482 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the filing of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s version, and the petitioners’ challenge to the evidentiary material justified quashing the criminal proceedings.

3. Whether the High Court could assess the reliability, admissibility, or evidentiary value of the prosecution material and the petitioners’ defence at the stage of a quashing petition.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and considered the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, quashing is an exceptional remedy; the Court must ordinarily permit investigation or prosecution to proceed where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and cannot test the genuineness, reliability, or truth of the allegations at that stage.

Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahr Lal, 1992 AIR 1379, establishes that proceedings should not be quashed where the complaint prima facie constitutes an offence and continuation would not amount to abuse of process.

Under Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, 2007 AIR SCW 5933, civil or matrimonial proceedings arising from the same facts do not, by themselves, terminate or justify quashing independent criminal proceedings.

Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221, and Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar, (2019) 13 SCC 350, further establish that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial, appreciate the defence, or ordinarily assess the veracity of documents while exercising inherent jurisdiction.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations that both petitioners had visited respondent No.2’s parental home, demanded ₹5,00,000, and linked payment of that amount to her return to the matrimonial home.

These allegations were prima facie corroborated by the statements of independent witnesses, Ramkumar Kurariya and Brajmohan, and by documentary material concerning the transfer of ₹50,000 to petitioner No.1.

The Court held that petitioner No.1’s filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights shortly after the FIR did not constitute a ground for quashing, since civil and criminal proceedings are legally independent.

The alleged discrepancy between 5 November and 6 November 2022, the petitioners’ assertion that the ₹50,000 transfer was a gift, and the objection regarding the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act were matters of evidence for trial, not grounds for exercising inherent jurisdiction.

Since the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case and the petitioners’ arguments required appreciation of evidence, the Court declined to undertake a mini-trial or examine the defence at the quashing stage.

The restitution proceedings, alleged inconsistencies, and challenges to the evidentiary material did not establish that the criminal prosecution was false, baseless, or an abuse of process.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 482 of the CrPC was therefore dismissed as meritless, and the FIR dated 20 December 2022 and all consequential criminal proceedings were not quashed.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the quashing petition and would not affect the merits of the trial.