The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that courts must exercise extreme caution before quashing criminal proceedings at the investigation stage, particularly where allegations, though vague, are not inherently improbable. The judgment underscores that disputed facts and evolving investigative material cannot be adjudicated in petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma, a 65-year-old retired government employee, was named as an accused in FIR No. 176 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR arose from an alleged domestic assault incident involving the petitioner’s niece-by-marriage, respondent No. 2, and her husband, Ankit Tiwari.
Key Facts
- The marriage between respondent No. 2 and Ankit Tiwari was solemnized on 05.02.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites.
- The couple resided at Park Life Colony, Sarkanda, while the petitioner resided separately at Shlok Vihar, Sipat Road, Bilaspur.
- The alleged incident occurred on 23.01.2026 at approximately 10:00 p.m. at the marital residence.
- The FIR, dated 10.02.2026, initially named only the husband as the accused, alleging he assaulted the complainant with fists and an iron rod while intoxicated.
- No mention of the petitioner was made in the original FIR or in the initial case diary from Crime No. 00/2026, Kotwali Police Station, Korba.
- Subsequent investigation included statements recorded during counselling proceedings, which allegedly implicated the petitioner.
- The petitioner suffers from serious medical conditions and is under continuous treatment.
- The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 11.03.2026.
Procedural History
- 23.01.2026: Alleged incident of domestic assault at Park Life Colony, Sarkanda.
- 10.02.2026: FIR No. 176 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, naming only the husband as accused.
- Between 10.02.2026 and 11.03.2026: Investigation conducted; statements recorded during counselling proceedings allegedly implicated the petitioner.
- 11.03.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, rejected petitioner’s anticipatory bail application.
- 23.03.2026: Petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that he had no role in the incident, was not present at the scene, and was implicated only through vague, post-FIR statements lacking specificity. Emphasized his age, medical condition, and remote familial relationship to the complainant.
Respondent/State: Contended that the investigation was ongoing and that statements collected during counselling formed part of the case diary. Asserted that allegations, though initially absent from the FIR, could not be dismissed at the threshold.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 176 of 2026 and all consequential proceedings, including investigation, arrest, charge-sheet filing, and any further criminal action against him.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court quash an FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when the petitioner is not named in the original FIR but is later implicated through subsequent investigative statements, and no specific allegations directly link him to the offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR contained no mention of the petitioner, who was neither present at the scene nor accused in the initial complaint. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that where allegations are vague, omnibus, and lack material particulars, they amount to an abuse of process. He emphasized that the subsequent inclusion of Section 85 of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act was arbitrary, as no weapon was recovered from him and no role was attributed. His advanced age, medical condition, and lack of any prior criminal record were cited as grounds for judicial intervention.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel contended that the investigation was still in its nascent stage and that statements recorded during counselling proceedings, though not part of the original FIR, formed part of the case diary and could not be ignored. He cited Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to argue that courts must not evaluate the credibility of evidence at the quashing stage. He maintained that the petitioner’s involvement, if any, was a matter for trial and not for pre-trial adjudication.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, recalling the settled principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and subsequent precedents. It held that the power to quash is extraordinary and must be exercised only where the allegations, on their face, do not disclose a cognizable offence or where continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
"At the stage of quashing, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or enter into disputed questions of fact."
The Court noted that while the original FIR named only the husband, the investigation had progressed to include statements implicating the petitioner. It emphasized that such subsequent statements, even if not part of the initial complaint, are part of the case diary and must be considered as part of the evolving investigative record. The Court observed that the petitioner’s absence from the scene, his remote relationship to the complainant, and his medical condition were matters of defence that required evidentiary appreciation - a task reserved for trial courts.
"Subsequent statements recorded during investigation cannot be discarded at the threshold merely on the ground that they were not part of the initial FIR, particularly when the investigation is still in progress."
The Court further held that the addition of Sections 85 and 25 of the Arms Act, while potentially contentious, could not be deemed frivolous or mala fide at this stage. The absence of a specific recovery or direct allegation did not render the entire FIR inherently improbable.
The Court concluded that the case did not fall within the narrow categories warranting quashing under Bhajan Lal. The allegations, when read with the investigative material, were sufficient to warrant continuation of proceedings.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that no grounds existed to quash the FIR or consequential proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply for anticipatory bail before the competent court, to be considered on its merits without prejudice to the observations made herein. The Court clarified that its findings were confined to the quashing petition and would not prejudice the petitioner’s defence at trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigation Material Cannot Be Ignored at Threshold
- Practitioners must not assume that absence from the original FIR guarantees immunity from prosecution.
- Statements recorded during investigation, even if added later, form part of the case record and may justify continuation of proceedings.
- Quashing petitions based solely on absence from the FIR will fail if subsequent material suggests involvement.
Judicial Restraint at Pre-Trial Stage Is Paramount
- Courts will not evaluate the credibility of witnesses or the sufficiency of evidence before trial.
- Allegations need not be proven at the quashing stage - only that they disclose a cognizable offence.
- Medical condition, age, or lack of prior record are not decisive factors for quashing unless the allegations are legally unsustainable.
Anticipatory Bail Remains the Proper Remedy
- Petitioners implicated post-FIR should pursue anticipatory bail, not quashing, as the primary remedy.
- High Courts will not substitute their opinion for investigative discretion unless the case is manifestly frivolous.
- The Court’s grant of liberty to apply for anticipatory bail reinforces that procedural safeguards remain available.
