Introduction:

In the case titled Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. Vs UT of J&K and others (2025), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet filed against multiple individuals accused of launching a violent, premeditated assault involving deadly weapons. The petitioners had invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that they were on official duty and not present at the scene of the crime when the alleged offence occurred. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, held that the plea of alibi is a matter of defence that cannot be entertained or adjudicated at the pre-trial stage within the scope of a petition for quashing the charge sheet.

Arguments:

The dispute arose from a First Information Report (FIR) that alleged the petitioners and their co-accused launched a violent and premeditated attack on the complainant, using axes, knives, and iron rods, causing severe injuries. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet indicating that prima facie evidence existed against the accused persons. Challenging the charge sheet, the petitioners approached the High Court, claiming that they were not present at the crime scene and were instead attending to official duties at different postings. They asserted that their alibi had been disregarded during the investigation, rendering the charge sheet baseless and malafide.

The counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Mudasir Bin Hassan, argued that the allegations lacked merit and were politically motivated. He invoked Section 528 of BNSS, which outlines the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. Relying on this provision, he argued that the Court was empowered to quash the proceedings in light of irrefutable documentary evidence demonstrating that the accused could not have been present at the scene. The petitioners also contended that the investigating agency had failed to consider their service records and duty postings, which would have corroborated their absence during the time of the alleged incident. It was further claimed that the continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment and a miscarriage of justice.

The respondent Union Territory opposed the petition, asserting that the investigation had been carried out fairly and impartially, culminating in a charge sheet supported by evidence. It was contended that the plea of alibi raised by the accused was not adequately substantiated during investigation and, even if it were, it constituted a matter of defence that could only be tested at trial. The respondent submitted that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, including attempt to murder and rioting with deadly weapons, and that the materials collected during investigation justified framing of charges. Consequently, the prayer for quashing the proceedings was premature and unsustainable.

Judgement:

Justice Sanjay Dhar, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, observed that it is a settled position of law that the plea of alibi is a matter of defence and can only be decided on the basis of evidence led during trial. Referring to settled precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that it could not conduct a mini-trial or weigh the sufficiency of evidence while deciding a petition under Section 528 of BNSS. The High Court clarified that while it has the power to quash proceedings in exceptional circumstances, such power is not to be exercised mechanically or in routine manner, especially when the FIR and charge sheet disclose commission of cognizable offences.

In this case, the Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations of a violent attack involving deadly weapons, naming the petitioners and attributing overt acts to them. The charge sheet, filed after due investigation, also indicated prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court noted that the petitioners’ alibi, including their claim of being on official duty, had been considered but not found convincing enough by the investigating agency to negate the accusations. The Court held that whether the petitioners were actually present at the crime scene or not was a matter that required detailed examination of evidence and could only be tested at trial.

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the misuse of criminal proceedings and observed that mere assertion of political motivation or malafide intent is insufficient to quash proceedings unless supported by incontrovertible evidence. The High Court emphasized that unless the materials on record overwhelmingly fail to disclose any offence or there is a clear abuse of process, the power to quash must be sparingly exercised. In the present case, the Court was satisfied that the materials disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.

Justice Dhar further opined that if the petitioners felt that their alibi was not properly investigated, they retained the right to approach the trial Magistrate with an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, now mirrored under BNSS. However, such contentions could not be addressed under the current petition for quashing. The Court maintained that the proper stage to assess the authenticity and credibility of the alibi would be during trial, after both prosecution and defence have had the opportunity to present their evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the challenge to the charge sheet was premature and not maintainable. The Court left it open to the petitioners to raise all permissible defences, including the plea of alibi, before the trial court.