Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Quash FIR Involving Grave Allegations of Impersonation and Extortion Requiring Trial

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, approached the High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR, lodged by the prosecutrix, alleged a syndicate involved in serial sexual exploitation, gang rape, and extortion.

Although the petitioner was not named by his full name in the FIR, police suspected him to be the individual identified as "Chouhan Sir" based on witness statements and his acquaintance with the primary accused.

The petitioner contended the FIR was filed with a delay of over two years and failed to disclose any specific criminal act against him, characterizing the matter as a civil dispute.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR on the grounds that it fails to prima facie disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioner.

2. Whether the disputed identity of the accused and the alleged delay in filing the FIR warrant the dismissal of criminal proceedings at the investigation stage.

The power to quash an FIR under Article 226 or Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) must be used sparingly and only in "rarest of rare cases" where allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence.

Courts cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or evaluate the reliability of evidence at the threshold stage.

Various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 318(4) regarding cheating/impersonation and provisions related to extortion and wrongful restraint.

The court found that the FIR detailed a specific sequence of events where an individual named "Chauhan" actively participated in the crime.

This individual allegedly impersonated a high-ranking police official, intercepted the prosecutrix, confiscated mobile phones, and facilitated the extortion of ₹6,00,000.

The court reasoned that these allegations constitute grave cognizable offences that involve active participation rather than mere presence.

Regarding the petitioner's argument on identity and lack of specific naming, the court determined that whether the petitioner is indeed the "Chauhan" mentioned is a subject for investigation and trial, not a writ proceeding.

The court refused to interfere because the allegations, if true, established a prima case of impersonation and coercion.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.