Scope of Quashing FIR (Paras 9, 2026:APHC:34328): High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR must be exercised sparingly, only in rarest of rare cases, and strictly on the face value of allegations. Bhajan Lal Principles (Para 9, 2026:APHC:34328): Seven cardinal principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) govern quashing of FIRs. These include absence of prima facie offence, absurd allegations, legal bar, mala fide prosecution, etc.

advocatemmmohan

Crl.P. No. 6135/2026 (citation: 2026:APHC:34328) decided by the Hon’ble Justice Sunitha Gandham on 20.08.2026:

Head Notes (with Para References, Citation: 2026:APHC:34328)

• Scope of Quashing FIR (Paras 9, 2026:APHC:34328): High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR must be exercised sparingly, only in rarest of rare cases, and strictly on the face value of allegations.

• Bhajan Lal Principles (Para 9, 2026:APHC:34328): Seven cardinal principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) govern quashing of FIRs. These include absence of prima facie offence, absurd allegations, legal bar, mala fide prosecution, etc.

• Prima Facie Case of Cheating (Paras 7–8, 10, 2026:APHC:34328): Allegations that petitioner induced complainant to pay ₹7,07,000/- for franchise of U&V electrical bike showroom, failed to deliver, and denied repayment, disclose ingredients of Section 318(4) BNS (cheating).

• Civil vs Criminal Nature (Para 10, 2026:APHC:34328): Pendency of insolvency petition does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations disclose cheating. Civil proceedings cannot shield against criminal liability.

• Contradictory Defence (Para 8, 2026:APHC:34328): Petitioner’s contradictory statements—denying acquaintance with complainant yet showing him as respondent in insolvency petition—undermine credibility of defence.

Analysis of Facts and Law (2026:APHC:34328)

• Facts (Paras 2–7):

  • FIR No. 88/2026 registered at Uravakonda PS for offence under Section 318(4) BNS (cheating).

  • Complainant alleged petitioner induced him to pay ₹15 lakh for franchise; he paid ₹7,07,000/- in installments.

  • Petitioner failed to deliver franchise, showroom stock, or promised returns.

  • Petitioner denied acquaintance, claimed payments were by Harish, and alleged complainant filed false case.

  • Petitioner also filed insolvency petition showing complainant as respondent.

• Law (Paras 9–10):

  • Quashing FIR requires allegations not disclosing any offence or falling within Bhajan Lal principles.

  • Allegations here, if taken at face value, disclose cheating under Section 318(4) BNS.

  • Insolvency proceedings do not negate criminal liability.

  • Contradictory defence weakens petitioner’s case.

  • Court cannot test truth or reliability of allegations at quash stage.

• Judicial Reasoning (Paras 9–10):

  • Allegations disclose prima facie offence of cheating.

  • Bhajan Lal principles not attracted.

  • Civil nature argument rejected; criminal liability distinct.

  • Petition dismissed; investigation to continue.

Conclusion (2026:APHC:34328)

• Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR dismissed.

• Court held prima facie case of cheating made out.

• Bhajan Lal principles not applicable.

• Insolvency proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution.

• Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed.