Presence of prima-facie evidence at the charge-sheet stage precludes the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings (SC ATR No. 183/2025) arising from Crime No. 481/2023

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner motivated the complainant’s husband to convert to Islam and pressured the complainant and her minor son toward the same

A chargesheet was filed following an investigation that included statements from the complainant’s minor son, Prince, which implicated the petitioner

The petitioner contended that the allegations were unsubstantiated and legal ingredients for the charged offences were not met

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds of insufficient material.

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice

Sections 3 and 5 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, which prohibit unlawful religious conversion through allurement, threat, or conspiracy

Section 506 (criminal intimidation) and Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC

Principles for quashing established in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. and thresholds for interference at the investigation/chargesheet stage in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra

The court found that there was prima facie material on record to implicate the petitioner, specifically citing the statement of the complainant’s minor son recorded during the investigation

It reasoned that since the investigation was complete and a chargesheet had been filed naming the petitioner, the veracity of the allegations (regarding the pressuring of the family for conversion at the petitioner's behest) became a subject matter for trial

The court determined that because specific roles were attributed to the petitioner by witnesses, the proceedings could not be deemed an abuse of process or a miscarriage of justice

The court emphasized that the petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the trial, and the High Court should not pre-judge the evidence under its inherent jurisdiction

The High Court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, finding no evidence that the process of law was being misused. Consequently, the petition and the application for stay (I.A. No. 5311/2026) were dismissed