Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty

"This Court in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS cannot evaluate the evidence, and form an opinion on the disputed facts raised on behalf of the applicant which is under the domain of the trial court", Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance order in a case where a 73-year-old man's former driver, along with others, allegedly entered his house forcibly, assaulted him, and outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law by tearing her clothes.

Justice Sanjiv Kumar firmly held that when the contents of an FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be exercised to evaluate evidence, assess contradictions in witness statements, or decide whether the FIR is a counterblast — all of which are exclusively within the domain of the trial court.

Background of the Case

The first informant, Prem Kumar Joel, aged 73 years, lodged an FIR on 9 August 2023 before Police Station Kotwali Commissionerate, Prayagraj, alleging that Applicant No. 1 — Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui, who had been his driver and had been permitted to stay temporarily in a vacant room of his house — refused to vacate the room and began misusing it. On 24 July 2023, the applicant along with others allegedly entered the informant's house, misbehaved with him, and when his daughter-in-law came to his rescue, she was also misbehaved with and her clothes were torn. The accused persons were caught by neighbours, locked in a room, and handed over to the police.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Applicant No. 1 under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC and against Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC. The concerned court took cognizance and issued summoning order on 21 March 2024. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present application under Section 528 BNSS before the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the charge-sheet and cognizance order.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature

The applicants contended that the entire controversy arose from a builder's agreement between the informant and Applicant No. 1, pursuant to which the latter's company — Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. — had constructed a two-storeyed building on the informant's land, with the ground floor going to the informant and the first floor to the builder. A civil suit for permanent injunction bearing Civil Suit No. 1096 of 2023 was already pending. The applicants argued that the criminal proceedings were, in essence, an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case.

The Court rejected this argument. It held that the pendency of a civil suit has no bearing on the continuation of criminal proceedings where the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. The nature of the background dispute does not immunise an accused from prosecution for independent criminal acts allegedly committed in that context.

"Prima facie pendency of civil case also has no effect over this case. Overall, the allegations levelled against the applicants prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence and in view of the above, there is no good ground to exercise inherent power of this Court in the instant matter."

Whether the FIR being a "counterblast" warrants quashing

The applicants further contended that the FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR dated 4 August 2023 lodged against the informant and his son for committing assault and robbery of Rs. 50,000/-, and damaging CCTV cameras. They submitted that both FIRs related to incidents of the same date — 24 July 2023 — with diametrically opposed versions, and that it was their FIR which reflected the truth.

The Court held that the question of which FIR represented the truth was a matter of evidence to be assessed by the trial court. Since both parties had lodged FIRs against each other for offences of the same date, the determination of which version was a counterblast required evaluation of evidence — a task beyond the scope of Section 528 BNSS proceedings.

"Whether the present case is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicant no. 1 or not, is a matter for the trial court to decide which requires evaluation of evidence and this Court cannot go through all this, in this proceeding, and form an opinion in this regard."

Whether contradictions in witness statements justify quashing

The applicants also urged that there were material contradictions in the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, which raised serious doubt over the prosecution case, and that even the alleged robbery of Rs. 5,000/- from the daughter-in-law was found to be incorrect during investigation.

The Court declined to enter into this territory at all. It reiterated that in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court cannot evaluate evidence or form opinions on disputed facts — that jurisdiction vests exclusively in the trial court.

"The effect of contradictions in statements of witnesses, if any, recorded by the Investigating Officer is also for the trial court to decide."

Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction Under Section 528 BNSS

The Court took the opportunity to restate the boundaries of the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS — the provision corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Drawing from the Supreme Court's celebrated ruling in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, the Court noted that inherent power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, and cannot be resorted to where a specific provision of the Code provides a remedy, or in a manner contrary to any express bar in law.

The Court also extensively relied on the Supreme Court's landmark guidelines in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which enumerate the categories of cases where quashing of an FIR or criminal proceedings would be justified — including where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence, where the allegations are so absurd that no prudent person could draw a conclusion of guilt, or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide to wreak vengeance. The Court found that none of these categories were attracted on the facts of the present case.

"Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases."

Decision

Dismissing the application, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that once a cognizable offence is prima facie made out from the contents of an FIR, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is not a substitute for trial. Defences such as the dispute being civil in nature, the FIR being a counterblast, or contradictions in witness statements are all matters that must be agitated before the trial court through the ordinary process of criminal trial — not collapsed at the threshold through quashing proceedings. The ruling serves as a timely reminder that inherent jurisdiction is a power to be exercised with restraint, not a mechanism to pre-empt the trial process.

Date of Decision: 16 March 2026