Quashing After Charge-Framing Requires Exceptional Circumstances, Not Disputed-Fact Adjudication at the High Court Stage.

The prosecution alleged that, on 22 May 2022, the petitioners used electricity at Kalyan Mantapa by drawing a direct line without a meter or RR number, causing an alleged loss of ₹4,66,097.

A complaint led to registration of an FIR and, after investigation, the filing of a charge sheet for an offence under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in Special Case No. 1248/2025 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

By the time the petition was heard, the trial court had framed charges and set the matter down for trial.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings after charges have been framed and the matter set down for trial

2. Whether the petitioners’ challenges to the alleged electricity theft raised exceptional circumstances warranting quashing, or instead concerned disputed facts for trial

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to proceedings for an alleged offence under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It stated that, once charges have been framed and a matter is set down for trial, the High Court should ordinarily be slow to interfere under Section 482, unless exceptional circumstances are shown; disputed questions of fact are generally for determination at trial.

The Court referred to this principle as having been established in several Supreme Court judgments but did not identify them.

The petitioners’ challenge principally disputed whether they had committed the alleged theft of electricity, a factual question the Court held required adjudication at trial.

The trial court had already considered the charge-sheet material, framed charges, and set the case down for trial.

As the petitioners demonstrated no exceptional circumstance warranting interference, and their factual disputes could not be resolved in the quashing petition, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration, and notice to respondent No. 2 was discharged.