An offence under Section 323 IPC may be established without a medical injury report.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from Complaint Case No. 505 of 2023 and the order dated 13 August 2024, by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh found a prima facie case under Sections 417, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to them.

During the pendency of the petition, the trial had commenced and the substance of accusation had been explained to the petitioners on 16 December 2025; one prosecution witness had also been examined.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners had cheated him of ₹19.70 lakhs, caused hurt to him and his father, and wrongfully restrained his brother in an occurrence dated 5 February 2023.

The petitioners contended that the allegations disclosed, at most, a contractual dispute, that there was no intention to cheat at the inception, and that the allegations regarding hurt and wrongful restraint were legally insufficient.

The prosecution witness, however, stated that the complainant’s brother, Md. Yasir Hafiz, had sustained injuries, and this fact emerged during cross-examination.

Whether the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance/summoning the petitioners under Sections 417, 323 and 341 IPC should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023?

Whether the absence of a medical injury report defeated the allegation under Section 323 IPC?

Whether the allegations of cheating, hurt and wrongful restraint could be assessed or rejected by the High Court at the quashing stage, particularly after a witness had been examined?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It held that an offence under Section 323 IPC can be established without production of a medical report, relying on Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), (2021) 9 SCC 191.

It also considered the principle from Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.

The Court further relied on the principle that, while exercising quashing jurisdiction, allegations must be examined at face value and the High Court cannot appreciate evidence, assess its probability, or conduct a mini-trial, as recognised in Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1790, and Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar, 2025 INSC 807.

The Court held that the absence of a medical report did not negate the Section 323 allegation because the evidence already recorded showed that the victim had sustained injuries; merely not visiting a doctor did not absolve the petitioners.

The Court distinguished Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the allegation was limited to a bare assertion of being beaten, noting that the present case contained the additional, unrebutted fact of injury.

The allegations also included cheating involving ₹19.70 lakhs and wrongful restraint, and therefore could not be rejected at the threshold.

Since the trial had commenced and a prosecution witness had already been examined, determining the credibility, evidentiary value, or ultimate sufficiency of that testimony would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which was impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Accordingly, the Court found no exceptional ground warranting interference with the pending prosecution.

It specifically held that a medical report is not indispensable for proving an offence under Section 323 IPC and that the existence of evidence regarding injury, coupled with allegations of cheating and wrongful restraint, required the trial to continue.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed as meritless, and the pending interlocutory application was disposed of as infructuous.