Accused's Defence Cannot Be Evaluated Through A Mini-Trial At The Stage Of Quashing FIR: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Rest of the pleas, which have been taken by the petitioner, are the matter of evidence and the credibility of the abovementioned pleas... can be adjudged, only, at the time of final decision of the trial." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that courts cannot evaluate the evidentiary value of an accused's defence or conduct a mini-trial while considering a petition for quashing a First Information Report (FIR).

A bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that at the initial stage, "only the allegations contained in the FIR are supposed to be looked into," refusing to quash an abetment to suicide case under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The case stems from an FIR lodged by a mother alleging that her son died by suicide due to harassment by his wife and the petitioner, who were allegedly in an illicit relationship. The complainant claimed the petitioner continuously pressured her son to divorce his wife. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the deceased's earlier matrimonial court filings made no mention of the petitioner or the alleged affair.

Questions Before The Court

The primary question before the court was whether evidentiary discrepancies and substantive defences raised by an accused can be examined to quash an FIR at the threshold. The court was also called upon to determine if the specific allegations in the complaint constituted a cognizable offence justifying police investigation without judicial interference.

No Mini-Trial Under Section 528 BNSS

Analyzing the scope of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction, the bench firmly reiterated that the court cannot embark upon an evidentiary enquiry. Relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the bench clarified that the judicial process should not interfere with police investigations when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The court noted that evaluating the reliability or genuineness of the allegations is strictly beyond the scope of a quashing petition.

Defences Are A Matter For Trial

Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the omission of his name in earlier matrimonial petitions filed by the deceased, the court categorized these as matters of evidence. The bench emphasized that any adjudication on such substantive defences requires the opportunity to lead evidence. The court noted that without allowing the trial court to test the evidence, it is premature to pronounce a conclusion based on the accused's parallel narrative.

Allegations Must Be Taken At Face Value

The bench extensively cited the Supreme Court's guidelines in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, observing that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in the "rarest of rare cases." The court reiterated that as long as the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute an offence, the police possess the statutory right and duty to investigate. The High Court must restrict its scrutiny only to the contents of the complaint.

"While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint."

Reliance On Landmark Precedents

The court further invoked the established parameters laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, alongside recent apex court rulings in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of Karnataka and Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan. Drawing from these precedents, Justice Singh emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. The court stressed that the FIR is "not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported."

Specific Allegations Bar Quashing

Applying these established legal principles to the case at hand, the court found specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his involvement in creating a situation that forced the deceased to commit suicide. The bench concluded that since a cognizable offence under Section 108 of BNS was clearly made out from the face of the FIR, there was no justification to stall the investigation or analyze the credibility of the petitioner's evidentiary claims at this juncture.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish any valid ground for quashing the FIR. The court held that the truthfulness of the allegations and the petitioner's subsequent defence must be tested during the trial through the proper appreciation of evidence.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026