The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be invoked merely because a counter-FIR exists or there is a delay in registration. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of allegations must be assessed at face value, leaving evidentiary disputes to the trial court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a violent altercation during a marriage function at Radha Krishna Marriage Garden, Ratlam, on 16 May 2025. The petitioners, relatives of Anita Parihar, and the respondents, including Mukesh Bhatia (Anita’s estranged husband), exchanged physical and verbal abuse. The incident led to two FIRs: one filed by Mukesh Bhatia on 17 May 2025 (Crime No. 378/2025) against the petitioners, and another filed the previous day (Crime No. 377/2025) against Mukesh and his family members.
Procedural History
- 16 May 2025: Physical altercation occurs at marriage function; injuries sustained by both sides.
- 17 May 2025: Mukesh Bhatia files FIR against petitioners under Sections 352, 115(2), 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of BNSS, 2023.
- 17 May 2025: Police conduct medico-legal examinations; two simple injuries recorded on Mukesh and one contusion on Chandabai.
- June 2025: Investigation concludes; charge sheet filed.
- December 2025: Petitioners file Misc. Criminal Case No. 37294/2025 under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the FIR was malafide, retaliatory, and lacked prima facie credibility due to the existence of a prior counter-FIR and delay in lodging the complaint.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the existence of a counter-FIR and a delay in lodging the complaint are sufficient grounds to invoke the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS to quash criminal proceedings, absent evidence of malice or absurdity in the allegations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners contended that the FIR was filed with mala fide intent to harass them due to an ongoing matrimonial dispute. They relied on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra to argue that where allegations are retaliatory and lack independent corroboration, the Court must intervene to prevent abuse of process. They emphasized that the delay of one day in filing the FIR, coupled with the prior FIR against their opponents, indicated a tit-for-tat strategy rather than genuine grievance.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the allegations were supported by independent eyewitnesses - Prakash, Chandrakala, Rahul, and Rakesh - and corroborated by medical evidence. It relied on State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla and ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass to assert that the Court cannot evaluate the credibility of witnesses or weigh evidence at the quashing stage. The State maintained that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the existence of a counter-FIR does not negate the validity of either complaint.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured review of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). It reiterated that the High Court must accept the allegations in the FIR at face value and refrain from entering into the merits of the case.
"At this stage, we must note that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is bound to take the allegations on its face value. Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the province of the Trial Court."
The Court distinguished between procedural irregularities and substantive legal bars. It held that delay in lodging an FIR, even if unexplained, does not automatically render the complaint baseless. Similarly, the filing of a counter-FIR does not imply malice or absence of a cognizable offence. The Court cited C.S. Prasad v. C. Satya Kumar to underscore that where factual disputes exist - such as the sequence of events, intent, or credibility of witnesses - the proper forum is the trial court.
The Court also noted that the medical report confirmed injuries to both parties, indicating a mutual altercation. The presence of multiple eyewitnesses further supported the prima facie existence of an offence under Sections 352, 351(3), and 296 of BNSS. The Court concluded that the petitioners’ arguments sought to pre-empt the trial process, which is impermissible under settled law.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under BNSS, 2023, and that the existence of a counter-FIR and delay in filing were insufficient grounds to invoke inherent jurisdiction. The trial court, not the High Court, is the appropriate forum to assess evidence and determine guilt.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Counter-FIRs Do Not Invalidate Prosecution
- Practitioners must not assume that a counter-FIR automatically renders the other complaint malafide.
- Courts will not quash proceedings merely because both parties have filed FIRs; each must be evaluated independently.
- The burden to prove malice lies squarely on the petitioner seeking quashing.
Delay in FIR Lodging Is Not Fatal
- A delay of hours or even a day does not, by itself, justify quashing.
- The focus must shift to whether the delay is so unreasonable as to suggest fabrication or collusion.
- Medical evidence and independent witness statements can neutralize the impact of delay.
Trial Courts Retain Exclusive Authority Over Evidence
- High Courts must avoid evaluating witness credibility, motive, or probability of events at the quashing stage.
- Any attempt to dissect evidence or infer intent will be viewed as overreach.
- Petitioners must confine arguments to whether the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence.
