A Magistrate cannot be faulted for delay caused by the complainant’s repeated adjournments.

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, to expeditiously decide his complaint and application under Section 175 BNSS.

The complaint related to an incident dated 26 August 2025. The police had submitted an Istigasha before the competent authority and informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly.

The Magistrate called for a report, received it, and fixed the matter for arguments. On 21 November and 8 December 2025, the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournments for arguments.

Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording the complainant’s preliminary witnesses; although three witnesses were examined on 3 March 2026, the petitioner’s counsel repeatedly sought time on 3 March, 13 April, 23 May, and 3 July 2026 to examine the remaining witnesses.

The State therefore contended that the Magistrate had been proceeding with the matter and that the delay was attributable to the petitioner’s counsel.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s complaint and application under Section 175 BNSS.

Whether there was undue delay in the proceedings attributable to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, warranting such a direction.

The Court considered the petition under Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to pass orders necessary to give effect to the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of court, or secure the ends of justice.

The petitioner’s underlying application invoked Section 175 BNSS in relation to the requested criminal proceedings.

The governing principle applied was that an expeditious-direction order is not warranted where the subordinate court has been actively proceeding with the matter and any delay is substantially attributable to the party seeking expedition.

The Court examined the Magistrate’s order sheets and found that the complaint and Section 175 application had been taken up, a police report had been called for and received, and the matter had thereafter proceeded to arguments and preliminary examination of witnesses.

The repeated adjournments were sought by the petitioner’s counsel, first for arguments and subsequently for examination of the remaining witnesses.

On these facts, the Court held that the record did not disclose inaction or unreasonable delay on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Since the factual basis for invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction—delay attributable to the subordinate court—was absent, no direction for expeditious disposal was justified.

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS, with no order as to costs.