The petitioner, the wife of the complainant (Respondent No. 1), found herself embroiled in legal troubles after her husband filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Vashi. The complainant sought an FIR against her for various offenses, arguing that the allegations stemmed from a domestic dispute. Following an initial inquiry ordered by the Magistrate, the police concluded that the complaint appeared to be retaliatory—filed to counter an earlier complaint by the petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Despite the police's report indicating that no cognizable offense had been committed, the Magistrate ordered the registration of the FIR, which prompted the petitioner to challenge the decision in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court acknowledged the Magistrate's error but deemed it powerless to quash the FIR, leading the petitioner to escalate the matter to the High Court.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Advait Tamhankar, argued that the Magistrate had overstepped his authority. Once cognizance of the complaint was taken and an inquiry initiated under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the law did not permit a return to the pre-cognizance stage. He emphasized that the Magistrate's failure to consider the police report before directing an FIR demonstrated a lack of due diligence.

In contrast, the state's representative, Mr. Ajay Patil, defended the Magistrate's order, asserting that the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offense, thereby justifying its registration.

The High Court scrutinized the procedural intricacies of the case. It reaffirmed that the powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. are distinct from those under Section 202, which come into play after cognizance has been taken. The Court noted that directing a police inquiry after taking cognizance was legally untenable.

The judgment underscored that once the Magistrate embarked on a course of action under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., switching back to the pre-cognizance stage was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the order for a preliminary inquiry, as directed by the Magistrate earlier, had no basis in law, as no provision exists that allows a Magistrate to mandate such an inquiry. In light of these findings, the High Court quashed the FIR, ruling that the legal process had not been properly followed and that the FIR was initiated based on a flawed understanding of the law.