Delay alone does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings once the trial has commenced.

The petitioners—Bhushan Pratap Patel, his parents, and his elder sister—invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR/Crime No. 77/2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, the charge-sheet, cognizance order, framing of charges, and Criminal Case No. 783/2021 pending for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC.

Respondent No. 2, the wife of Petitioner No. 1, alleged that after their marriage on 01.07.2009 she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, abuse, assault, and harassment by the petitioners, including cruelty allegedly connected with her caste.

She further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 assaulted her after consuming alcohol and that, owing to continuous harassment, she consumed phenol on 10.01.2021 and was hospitalised.

The police filed the charge-sheet on 12.04.2021, charges were framed on 29.07.2022, and the trial was thereafter fixed for prosecution evidence.

Of seven prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined when the petition was considered.

The petitioners contended that the allegations were general and omnibus and that the prolonged pendency of the trial caused prejudice.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the allegations were matters of evidence and that the prosecution had already commenced.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, framing of charges, and criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus?

2. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed solely on the ground of prolonged pendency where the trial had commenced but only one of seven prosecution witnesses had been examined?

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

The underlying prosecution arose under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cruelty by the husband or his relatives and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court proceeded on the principle that disputed allegations and evidentiary matters ordinarily should not be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing, particularly once the trial has commenced.

It further held that delay, by itself, did not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction where the prosecution had commenced and the proceedings had made some progress.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, charges had been framed, and the prosecution had begun examining witnesses.

Although six of the seven prosecution witnesses remained to be examined and the proceedings had been pending for a considerable period, the case could not be treated as one in which the trial had not commenced or had made no progress.

The petitioners’ objections concerning the general nature of the allegations and the attribution of acts to individual accused involved assessment of the prosecution evidence, which was inappropriate at the quashing stage.

In view of the stage of the trial, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction merely because of delay, while leaving all merits-related questions open for determination by the Trial Court.

However, considering the prolonged pendency and the commencement of trial, it directed the Trial Court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial within four months, subject to cooperation by the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournments.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or evidence, and that the Trial Court must decide the case strictly in accordance with law and on the evidence led before it.