Inherent jurisdiction is discretionary, and discretion notices conduct. In Arvind Kumar Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 8032/2026, decided on 28 October 2026, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS — the successor to Section 482 CrPC — seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 69, 351, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegations of a marriage assurance that induced a physical relationship, followed by refusal and threats to circulate private pictures, disclosed cognizable offences; and the petitioner, declared a proclaimed person for evading warrants, had placed himself in the worst possible position to seek equitable relief. His anticipatory bail application remains pending, without interim protection.
The allegations and the petition
The parties had known each other for about two years. The FIR — No. 32/2026, PS Rajinder Nagar — alleged that the petitioner gave the complainant a ring, promised marriage, induced a physical relationship, then distanced himself and threatened to circulate her private pictures. Her statement under Section 183 BNSS recorded the refusal to marry; her Section 180 BNSS statements added allegations of nude photographs and blackmail. The petitioner called it a consensual relationship that failed, pointed to delay in the FIR, and relied on precedents where proceedings had been quashed after the parties married or moved on.
The court\'s reasoning
- Prima facie offence disclosed: the FIR and chargesheet, read with the complainant\'s statements, alleged a specific marriage assurance that led to the relationship — not a bare breakdown. At the threshold stage that is enough to keep the case outside the quashing categories.
- Bad faith versus breach: the court restated the governing distinction — a promise defeated by unforeseen circumstances is not Section 69 BNS; a promise made with no intention of performance, which directly induced the relationship, is. Which side of the line this case falls on is a trial question.
- Precedents distinguished: in the decisions relied upon, the parties had married after the FIR or the complainant had moved on; neither was true here.
- Conduct counted: the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person on 15 September 2026 for deliberately avoiding warrants and had not joined the investigation — a factor the court expressly weighed in declining to entertain the petition.
The strategic lesson
Accused persons sometimes treat quashing petitions and absconding as parallel tracks: stay out of reach while the High Court considers the FIR. This judgment shows why that strategy backfires. Discretionary jurisdictions — Section 528 BNSS, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS — are exercised for those who submit to the process. Once a proclaimed person declaration enters the record, every court that touches the file sees an accused who has defied process, and relief at every level becomes harder: quashing is refused, anticipatory bail is viewed with suspicion, and the separate offence of non-appearance under Section 209 BNS can be added. The sounder sequence is almost always the reverse — join the investigation, contest the proclamation if it was irregularly issued, secure bail, and then attack the FIR on its merits with clean hands.
Practice note: Where a client learns of a warrant in a Section 69 BNS case, act before the proclamation stage: an application for anticipatory bail, or appearance with an application for exemption, keeps the discretionary doors open. After a proclamation, the realistic first step is surrender and regular bail — not a quashing petition.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 69 BNS punish?
Sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. Courts distinguish a promise that fails later due to changed circumstances — not an offence — from one made in bad faith from the outset solely to induce the relationship, which vitiates consent.
When can an FIR be quashed at the threshold?
Broadly within the categories settled in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide. An FIR alleging a specific inducing assurance, supported by the complainant's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, does not fit those categories.
How does proclaimed person status affect discretionary relief?
Severely. A person who evades execution of warrants and declines to join the investigation is seeking the court's discretion while flouting its process. Courts routinely refuse quashing, and often anticipatory bail, until the accused submits to the law's authority.
Is a pending anticipatory bail application protection against arrest?
No. Unless the court grants interim protection, the mere pendency of an application does not restrain arrest. In this case the court noted expressly that no interim protection operated in the pending bail application.