Criminal proceedings should not be quashed after charges are framed absent exceptional circumstances.

The complainant alleged that, on 26 January 2022, while he and his wife were sowing land in Sy. No. 57/2022, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted them and outraged his wife’s modesty.

The complaint was lodged on 4 February 2022, and the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, citing the delay in lodging the complaint, false implication and insufficient charge-sheet material.

By the time the High Court considered the petition, the trial court had framed charges and set the matter down for trial.

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) on the grounds of delay, alleged false implication and insufficiency of the charge-sheet material.

Whether the High Court should exercise its quashing jurisdiction after charges had been framed and the matter set down for trial, absent exceptional circumstances.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings.

It applied the principle that, after charges have been framed and a matter is set down for trial, courts are generally reluctant to quash proceedings and should do so only where exceptional circumstances warrant interference; disputed questions of fact are not to be determined in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

The judgment refers generally to the Supreme Court’s “catena of judgments” but identifies no specific precedent.

The Court noted that the trial court had framed charges after considering the charge-sheet material and that this procedural stage was undisputed.

It found that the petitioners had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying intervention and that their contentions—including the alleged delay and false implication—raised disputed factual questions unsuitable for determination under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court therefore declined to interrupt the trial.

Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as no longer surviving for consideration, and the Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition.