High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the accused’s defence under Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 May 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih, in M.C.A. No. 2527 of 2025 arising out of S.T. Case No. 332 of 2025, Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 42 of 2007 and G.R. Case No. 1049 of 2007.

The trial court allowed the petitioner’s limited prayer for discharge from the offence under Section 307 IPC, held that Section 413 IPC was not made out, and directed the Judicial Magistrate to consider framing charges for the remaining offences alleged in the police charge-sheet.

The charge-sheet alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 413, 414 and 34 IPC, Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, and Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act.

The petitioner contended that he was innocent, had no criminal antecedents, and that there was no material showing that the coal-related documents were forged or fabricated.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the impugned order or the criminal proceedings when the petitioner’s limited discharge prayer had already been allowed and the remaining offences were directed to be considered for framing of charge?

Whether the petitioner’s contention that the allegations were false and that the coal-related documents were not forged or fabricated could be adjudicated at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 2 Supreme 501, for the principle that the accused’s defence and the veracity of evidence cannot ordinarily be examined in proceedings under the inherent-jurisdiction provision.

It further relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, which holds that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreci­ate evidence while deciding an application under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that the mere assertion that the prosecution allegations are false constitutes a defence to be raised at trial and is not, by itself, a ground for quashing proceedings after submission of a charge-sheet.

The Court found that the petitioner had sought discharge only from the offence under Section 307 IPC, and that relief had already been granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The consequential direction to place the matter before the Judicial Magistrate for consideration of charges for the remaining offences was consistent with the limited scope of the discharge application and did not disclose any illegality.

The petitioner did not dispute that the police had submitted a charge-sheet alleging several offences; instead, he principally asserted that the allegations were false and that the documents were not forged. Determining the truth of those assertions would require assessment of the prosecution material and would effectively amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner’s objections were matters for the trial and did not justify interference with the impugned order.

The petitioner’s challenge was rejected because the discharge order was confined to Section 307 IPC, Section 413 IPC had been found not to be made out, and the remaining allegations were appropriately left for consideration of charge by the Judicial Magistrate.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.