High Courts cannot conduct a mini-trial under Section 528 BNSS at the quashing stage.

The petitioners—employees and directors of M/s Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.—were accused in Dhansar P.S. Case No. 155 of 2021 concerning an alleged conspiracy to induce the informant to pay approximately ₹4.63 crores as advance for imported coking coal. The prosecution alleged that, instead of supplying genuine imported coking coal, the petitioners supplied inferior waste coal, misrepresented its origin through tax invoices, and committed cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, criminal intimidation and allied offences

The petitioners’ earlier attempt to quash the FIR was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench, which found prima facie material regarding non-supply or supply of sub-standard coal, cheating, abuse and threats. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that order, leaving the merits open before the competent court. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506/34 IPC. The Magistrate initially took cognizance only under Sections 420, 120B and 506 IPC. On the informant’s revision, the revisional court set aside that order and directed fresh consideration. That revisional order attained finality after the petitioners withdrew their challenge before the High Court

Pursuant thereto, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 22 September 2025, taking cognizance of all the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioners invoked Section 528 BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the cognizance order

1. Whether the High Court should quash the order dated 22 September 2025 taking cognizance under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506/34 IPC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023?

2. Whether the existence of a commercial suit and the alleged civil nature of the dispute justified quashing the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process?

3. Whether the allegations and materials relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery were matters requiring examination at the stage of framing of charge rather than quashing under Section 528 BNSS?

4. Whether the Magistrate was bound by the revisional court’s final direction to reconsider and take cognizance of the offences disclosed by the police report?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, while emphasizing that such power must not be used to conduct a mini-trial or assess disputed evidence

Under State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, (2014) 3 SCC 659, a Magistrate dealing with a police report cannot add or subtract offences at the stage of taking cognizance; the appropriateness of particular offences is ordinarily determined at the stage of framing of charge, where the prosecution and accused may advance their respective contentions

Under State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, the High Court cannot appreciably evaluate evidence or conduct a mini-trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction

The Court further applied the principle that a final order of a revisional court is binding on the subordinate Magistrate

The Court held that the prior order refusing to quash the FIR, having survived challenge before the Supreme Court, precluded reconsideration of whether the FIR disclosed the basic ingredients of the alleged offences

The Court held that the FIR contained specific allegations that the petitioners had induced the informant to part with substantial money, supplied inferior material in place of imported coking coal, used allegedly false tax invoices, and threatened or influenced witnesses

Those allegations had already been held prima facie sufficient by the co-ordinate Bench, and the police, after investigation, had found them substantiated and filed a charge-sheet

The petitioners’ contentions—that most of the coal had been supplied, that Sections 406 and 420 IPC could not coexist, that the invoice discrepancy was a typographical error, and that the dispute was essentially civil—required evaluation of defence material and disputed facts. Such an exercise would amount to a mini-trial and was impermissible under Section 528 BNSS

The existence of a commercial suit did not, by itself, extinguish the criminality alleged.

Further, the Magistrate was required to act consistently with the final revisional order directing fresh consideration of all offences disclosed in the police report

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and the impugned cognizance order dated 22 September 2025 was left undisturbed