Criminal prosecution cannot continue where foundational material linking rashness or negligence to death is absent.

The petitioner, aged about 73 years, was prosecuted in connection with a motor-vehicle accident dated 8 January 2022.

Immediately after the accident, he lodged Crime No. 10/2022, alleging that a cow came onto the highway, compelling him to apply brakes, whereafter the deceased’s vehicle collided with his vehicle from behind.

A second FIR, Crime No. 26/2022, was registered on 15 January 2022 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, alleging that the petitioner had overtaken the deceased and suddenly applied brakes, causing the collision and death.

The petitioner challenged the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance dated 23 November 2022, and the charges framed on 24 November 2023.

The Magistrate had framed charges, but despite repeated dates, the prosecution had not examined even one witness; the petitioner also relied on his age and the prolonged pendency of the trial.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and material collected during investigation disclosed the foundational ingredients of rash or negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC so as to justify continuation of the prosecution.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings where the prosecution material allegedly lacked direct evidence of the petitioner’s rash or negligent act.

Whether the prolonged pendency of the trial, the petitioner’s advanced age, and the prosecution’s failure to examine any witness supported interference in the interests of justice.

The Court applied Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, holding that mere involvement of a vehicle in an accident and the resulting death do not establish the offences; the prosecution must prima facie show a specific rash or negligent act attributable to the accused and a causal connection between that act and the death.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice; although the Court ordinarily does not conduct a mini-trial or appreciate disputed evidence, it may intervene where the allegations and investigation material, taken at face value, fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court also recognised the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, while observing that delay alone would not ordinarily justify quashing but may assume significance when combined with fundamental deficiencies in the prosecution case.

The Court found that the prosecution’s later account—that the petitioner overtook the deceased and suddenly applied brakes—was not supported by any identified independent eyewitness.

The complainant’s initial statement did not disclose the petitioner’s vehicle number or the alleged manner of overtaking; instead, it referred to information received from Prakash Sahu, who was not examined during investigation.

This version materially differed from the petitioner’s contemporaneous FIR alleging a rear-end collision after his vehicle stopped because of a cow.

Although the Court did not determine which version was factually correct, it held that the prosecution had failed to place even foundational material showing the petitioner’s specific rash or negligent act.

The site map and the position of the vehicles, without supporting evidence, could not establish criminal negligence.

The unexplained variation between the two versions, absence of direct eyewitness evidence, ineffective investigation of the earlier FIR, and the prosecution’s failure to commence evidence despite the petitioner’s age collectively rendered continuation of the trial oppressive and an abuse of process.

Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Crime No. 26/2022, the consequential charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance dated 23 November 2022, the charges framed against the petitioner, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.