Challenge to criminal proceedings disposed of; complainant directed to appear and trial expedited.

Respondent No. 2, proprietor of Guru Medical Store, alleged that Petitioner No. 2, who operated an adjacent Gujarat Namkeen shop, regularly dumped garbage and parked customers’ vehicles in front of the medical store.

On 3 December 2024, when Respondent No. 2 objected, Petitioner No. 2 allegedly abused him, attempted to assault him with a danda, removed his shop board, and threatened him.

An FIR was registered under Sections 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioners.

After investigation, charge-sheet No. 891/2024 dated 14 December 2024 was filed; cognizance was taken on 17 December 2024, and charges were framed on 14 January 2025.

The criminal case was pending at the stage of prosecution evidence.

The Court had earlier been informed that Respondent No. 2 had not appeared before the trial court on nine occasions for recording his evidence.

Respondent No. 2 appeared in person before the High Court and stated that he had not received the trial court’s summons but undertook to appear on the next date fixed before the trial court, namely 8 October 2026.

Whether the charge-sheet, cognizance order, framing-of-charge order, and consequential criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 1184/2024 were liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the allegations did not disclose any offence and were vague or omnibus?

Whether any further direction was required to secure Respondent No. 2’s appearance before the trial court and facilitate expeditious conclusion of the pending criminal trial?

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court proceeded on the limited procedural consideration that the complainant’s presence was necessary for recording prosecution evidence and that the pending trial should be concluded expeditiously.

No precedent or detailed legal test governing quashing under the inherent jurisdiction was expressly relied upon in the order.

Although the petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings on merits, asserting that the allegations did not disclose a prima facie offence, the Court did not adjudicate those contentions or examine the evidentiary sufficiency of the charge-sheet.

Instead, the immediate procedural difficulty before the Court was Respondent No. 2’s repeated non-appearance before the trial court for recording evidence.

After the Superintendent of Police facilitated his appearance before the High Court, Respondent No. 2 explained his absence and undertook to appear before the trial court on 8 October 2026.

The Court therefore treated the matter as capable of being addressed through directions for securing the complainant’s attendance and expediting the trial, without granting or rejecting the petitioners’ substantive request for quashing on merits.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, on the next date fixed by the trial court, i.e., 8 October 2026.

The trial court was directed to ensure his appearance and to conclude the trial expeditiously.

The Court consequently did not quash the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, framing-of-charge order, or the pending criminal proceedings, nor did it finally decide the petitioners’ challenge under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC.