Ashish Dave v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr, 2026
The Supreme Court exercise of supervisory jurisdiction ensures protection against arbitrary criminal proceedings.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
17 March 2026
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Complaint filed in September 2025 alleging:
-
Unauthorized financial dealings.
-
Misuse of position.
-
Demanding monetary favours under threat of negative media coverage.
-
Broadcast of defamatory/coercive content.
-
Alleged financial and reputational harm to the company.
-
-
FIR registered by Ashok Nagar Police invoking provisions corresponding to extortion, cheating, and criminal intimidation.
-
Appellant challenged FIR in Rajasthan High Court under Section 528 BNSS, claiming allegations were vague, false, and malicious.
-
High Court refused to quash FIR at preliminary stage.
Issues
-
Whether Section 173(3) BNSS allows police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before FIR registration, even where allegations disclose a cognizable offence?
-
Whether FIR registration without a preliminary enquiry in cases punishable for 3–7 years constitutes abuse of process?
-
Whether vague, speculative, or unparticularized allegations can sustain cognizable offence registration under BNSS?
-
Whether reputed complainants (like media houses) carry a higher onus to provide material particulars prima facie establishing offences?
Held
- Section 173(3) BNSS permits police to verify prima facie existence of offences punishable between 3–7 years before registering FIR.
-
FIRs cannot be mechanically registered on vague or speculative allegations.
-
High-profile or influential complainants do not diminish the requirement of material particulars.
-
Continuation of proceedings in absence of prima facie case constitutes abuse of legal process.
-
Supreme Court exercise of supervisory jurisdiction ensures protection against arbitrary criminal proceedings.
Analysis
- Marks a significant legislative shift from CrPC, prioritizing preliminary verification over automatic FIR registration.
-
Reinforces principle that criminal law cannot be weaponized through speculative or malicious complaints.
-
Balances complainant rights with protection of accused against frivolous proceedings.
-
Strengthens the police’s discretionary power under BNSS, but requires careful application and approval of superior officers.
-
Affirms that even corporate or media complainants must present concrete evidence before criminal proceedings can initiate.
-
Extends Lalita Kumari precedent by contextualizing preliminary enquiry in BNSS for 3–7 year punishable offences.