Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a detailed evidentiary assessment at the discharge stage.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 0046 of 2024, the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order, the order rejecting his discharge application, and the consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2024.

He argued that no specific role was attributed to him and that the investigating officer had not properly considered an eyewitness statement and CCTV footage.

The State and private respondents opposed the application, relying on witness statements, medical evidence, and the alleged recovery of weapons.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned order and consequential criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the applicant’s challenges concerning the eyewitness statement and CCTV footage warranted interference at this stage.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction, to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

At the discharge or charge-framing stage, the court considers whether the material on record provides sufficient grounds to proceed; detailed evaluation of evidence, witness credibility, or disputed facts is ordinarily impermissible.

The applicant’s contentions about the eyewitness statement and CCTV footage required examination of the investigative material and its evidentiary significance.

The prosecution relied on the injured person’s and doctor’s statements and the alleged weapon recovery, raising matters that could not be conclusively resolved through detailed evidentiary assessment in the present proceedings.

The Court therefore found no sufficient basis to invoke its inherent jurisdiction.

It made no order as to costs and clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial court’s independent consideration in accordance with law.