Prima facie evidence precludes quashing of criminal proceedings despite non-recovery of the offending vehicle.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash FIR No. 0063/2025 and the subsequent charge-sheet for offences including attempt to murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The incident allegedly occurred on 02.03.2025, where the victim was knocked down by a motorcycle and assaulted; however, the FIR was lodged after an 11-day delay on 13.03.2025.

The petitioner contended he was merely a pillion rider with no control over the vehicle.

Procedurally, the investigation resulted in a final report on 14.12.2025, and the Second Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, took cognizance on 20.01.2026.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings on grounds of delay, lack of specific role, and the prosecution's failure to identify or seize the offending vehicle.

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-recovery of the offending vehicle are sufficient grounds to quash criminal proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the petitioner’s status as a pillion rider and the lack of specific actus reus attributed to him warrant the termination of the trial at the threshold.

Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

the settled legal principle that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only when no prima facie case is established

the doctrine that at the stage of quashing, a "roving enquiry" into the merits or sufficiency of evidence is impermissible, and disputed questions of fact must be left for trial

The court reasoned that the FIR and the victim's statement provided a specific account of the incident, attributing distinct roles to the accused.

While the petitioner argued his role as a pillion rider absolved him of liability, the court held that whether he shared common intention or attracted vicarious liability is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated at trial.

Regarding the 11-day delay in the FIR, the court accepted the State's explanation that the victim was undergoing medical treatment for serious injuries from 03.03.2025 to 08.03.2025, noting that such delay is not fatal if reasonably explained.

Furthermore, the court determined that the non-recovery of the motorcycle did not vitiate the case at this preliminary stage because the ocular testimony of the victim and corroborating medical evidence prima facie established the commission of a cognizable offence.

The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of the investigation's deficiencies is a matter for the trial court to weigh.

The Court answered the issues by stating that threshold interference is unwarranted when allegations are supported by medical and documentary evidence, regardless of the non-recovery of the offending vehicle or the initial delay in reporting.

The court declined to stifle the prosecution and ordered that the criminal proceedings in Session Trial No. 13/2026 continue.