Quashing petition withdrawn after trial commenced, with liberty to raise legally permissible contentions before the trial court.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 121/2025 registered at Police Station Gourela for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the final report, the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance/recording the case in the criminal register, the order framing charge, and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1555/2025.

During hearing, the petitioner’s counsel fairly submitted that the trial had commenced; the State informed the Court that four of the eleven prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

In view of the commencement of trial, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions before the trial Court. The State had no objection.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, final report, cognizance order, charge, and consequential criminal proceedings after commencement of trial.

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions before the trial Court.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a petitioner may withdraw a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, particularly where the trial has commenced, while reserving the right to raise legally permissible objections before the trial Court.

The substantive allegations concerned Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the alleged offence or the validity of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, or charge.

Since the trial had already commenced and four out of eleven prosecution witnesses had been examined, the Court did not examine the petitioner’s challenge to the FIR, final report, cognizance, or framing of charge on merits.

The petitioner expressly chose to withdraw the CRMP with liberty to advance all contentions before the trial Court, and the State raised no objection.

The Court therefore considered withdrawal appropriate, while preserving the petitioner’s statutory and procedural rights during trial.

It observed that the petitioner may, if so advised, raise all contentions legally permissible during the course of the trial.

The Court further expected the parties to cooperate with the trial Court for effective disposal of the case.

No finding was recorded on the merits of the prosecution or on the validity of the impugned proceedings.