High Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial or Evaluate Defense Pleas Under Section 528 BNSS Once Trial Commences

The petitioner was accused of committing offences under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Following an investigation into Telaiya P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025, the police filed a charge sheet, and the Magistrate took cognizance.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which framed charges against the petitioner after finding sufficient material on record.

The petitioner did not challenge the charge sheet, the cognizance order, or the framing of charges, nor did he file a discharge petition.

After the trial commenced, the petitioner filed this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the allegations were false.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash a trial on the basis of a defense plea once the trial has already commenced.

2. Whether the petition is maintainable given the absence of a specific prayer and the petitioner’s failure to challenge previous procedural stages.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court.

The principle established in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004), asserting that the High Court cannot consider the veracity of evidence or defense pleas in its inherent jurisdiction, as that remains the exclusive domain of the trial court.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Akhil Sharda & Ors. (2022) to reiterate that the High Court cannot conduct a "mini trial" while exercising such powers.

The Court observed that the petitioner sought to bypass the established trial process by raising a defense plea of innocence only after the trial had already begun.

The Court noted that the petitioner had waived his rights to challenge the investigation, cognizance, and framing of charges at the appropriate stages.

Applying the precedents of Awadh Kishore Gupta and Akhil Sharda, the Court reasoned that it is legally prohibited from stepping into the shoes of the trial court to evaluate the truthfulness of allegations or conduct a mini trial under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court found the petition to be a "frivolous" attempt to stall the smooth progress of the trial, especially given the "overwhelming evidence" noted by the trial court during charge framing.

The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition as meritless and frivolous, directing the trial to proceed.