An FIR may be quashed if the alleged offences are non-cognizable and the investigating agency fails to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, particularly when the dispute is primarily monetary or personal in nature.

ORAL ORDER

1) RULE

. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja and learned advocate Mr. U.M.Shaikh appear and waive service of notice of rule on behalf of their respective respondents.

2) By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ”the BNSS, 2023), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 11210064250103 of 2026 registered with Godadara Police Station, Surat as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Altaf Charkha for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah for the respondent No. 1 – State.

4) Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered for offences which are essentially non-cognizable in nature and, , the police authority could not have proceeded with registration and investigation without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It is submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence and the impugned proceedings are nothing but a misuse of the criminal machinery to pressurize the applicant in a purely monetary dispute. It is further submitted that the registration of the impugned F.I.R. is arbitrary, mala fide and amounts to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the present application may be allowed.

5) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State has vehemently opposing the present application and has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences against the applicant. It is submitted that specific allegations have been levelled in the complaint regarding threats, intimidation and use of abusive language by the applicant towards the complainant and her family members through phone calls and messages and at the stage of considering an application for quashing, this Hon’ble Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or appreciate the disputed questions of fact. The allegations made in the F.I.R., if taken at their face value, clearly disclose commission of offences and therefore the investigation deserves to proceed in accordance with law. Learned APP has further submitted that the contentions raised by the applicant pertain to disputed questions of fact which can be examined only during the course of investigation and trial. It is therefore urged that the present application being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected.

6) So far as Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujara t reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, has observed in Para-15 as under:

“15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inherent the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the grou