Subsequent investigative material indicating involvement precludes quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner, a 65-year-old retired senior citizen, sought the quashing of FIR No. 176/2026 registered under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the complainant’s husband.

The complainant alleged that on January 23, 2026, her husband assaulted and threatened her while intoxicated at their matrimonial residence.

Although the initial FIR primarily named the husband, the petitioner was subsequently implicated based on omnibus allegations made during counseling proceedings.

The petitioner contended he resided separately, was not present during the alleged incident, and suffered from serious medical ailments.

His anticipatory bail application had been previously rejected on March 11, 2026.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and subsequent investigative material disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioner to justify a trial.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash criminal proceedings at the investigation stage.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), which grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the landmark principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which dictate that quashing is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly only when allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose an offence.

The Court further noted that it cannot embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations or settle disputed questions of fact during quashing proceedings.

The Court observed that while the initial FIR focused on the husband’s actions, the material subsequently collected during the investigation—specifically statements recorded during counseling—indicated the petitioner's involvement.

The Bench reasoned that the petitioner’s arguments regarding his distant relationship, separate residence, and medical condition constitute matters of defense that require the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court emphasized that statements recorded during an ongoing investigation cannot be discarded merely because they were absent from the initial FIR.

It concluded that the allegations were not "absurd or inherently improbable" and that the sufficiency of the evidence against the petitioner is a matter for investigation and potential trial.

The Court clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to pursue other legal remedies, including filing for anticipatory bail before the competent court, which must be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations in this order.