Section 528 BNSS cannot quash an FIR absent the charge-sheet and cognizance order on record.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 19/2026, registered on 29 April 2026 at Mahila Police Thana, Balaghat, for offences under Section 85 of the BNSS/Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 22 November 2025.

Respondent no. 2 had approached the District Legal Services Authority, Balaghat, on 21 April 2026, where proceedings were initiated and listed for 28 April 2026.

The petitioners contended that the FIR, lodged on 29 April 2026, contained false and omnibus allegations, including allegations of unnatural acts and impotency against petitioner no. 1.

The State and the complainant opposed quashing, submitting that specific allegations had been made against all petitioners and that the investigation was still pending.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed cognizable offences warranting interference and quashing under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?

Whether a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing an FIR alone was maintainable when neither the police report/charge-sheet nor the order taking cognizance had been placed on record?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that inherent powers to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, taken at face value and in their entirety, do not disclose any cognizable offence; disputed facts and defence documents ordinarily cannot be examined at that stage.

Relying on Kamaladevi Agrawal v. State of W.B., R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, State of M.P. v. Deepak, and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court reiterated that the High Court should not conduct a meticulous evidentiary assessment or determine the likelihood of conviction while considering quashing.

The principles in Neeharika Infrastructure—as reproduced in Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi—require courts ordinarily not to obstruct an investigation where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court also relied on Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish for the proposition that foundational factual and evidentiary issues should be left to the trial court.

Finally, relying on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that where quashing is sought under Section 528 of the BNSS after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, those proceedings and the cognizance order must be placed on record; in the absence of such material, the petition for quashing the FIR under Section 528 was not maintainable.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations concerning cruelty, dowry-related conduct, and other alleged matrimonial misconduct against the petitioners, and therefore it could not, at the threshold, hold that no cognizable offence was disclosed.

The petitioners’ assertions that the allegations were false, omnibus, or motivated by the proceedings before the District Legal Services Authority involved disputed questions of fact and could not be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Consistent with the rule that the police must be permitted to complete investigation where the FIR prima facie discloses an offence, the Court declined to assess the reliability of the allegations or the prospective chances of conviction.

Independently, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Section 528 because the petitioners had sought quashing only of the FIR and had not placed either the charge-sheet or the order taking cognizance before the Court.

It declined to quash the FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings, holding that the allegations required investigation and that the petition was additionally not maintainable under Section 528 of the BNSS in the absence of the charge-sheet and cognizance order.

The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

The Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.