Section 528 BNSS Power Cannot Be Invoked for Mini-Trial to Assess Veracity of Evidence or Defence

The petitioner (husband) filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising from Parsudih P.S. Case No. 83 of 2017

The complainant (wife) alleged that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty by grabbing her neck and throwing her down, causing head injuries

Further allegations included a dowry demand of ₹10,00,000 and character assassination, specifically disowning their male child and accusing the wife of illicit relations with his brother to coerce the dowry payment

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the trial court took cognizance and framed charges on November 21, 2025

The petitioner contended the allegations were false, noting his service in the Indian Army and alleging the wife refused to live at his place of posting

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, should quash the criminal proceedings and the order framing charges when specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand exist?

2. Whether the High Court can conduct a "mini trial" to appreciate the veracity of the accused’s defense at the stage of a quashing petition?

The court applied Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973), which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process

Precedent established in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta Others (2004), holding that the veracity of evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered under inherent jurisdiction

Principle from State of Uttar Pradesh Another v. Akhil Sharda Others (2022), which prohibits the High Court from conducting a "mini trial" or appreciating evidence at the stage of deciding an application for quashing

The Court observed that the FIR and charge-sheet contained direct and specific allegations against the petitioner regarding willful conduct likely to cause grave injury (grabbing the neck), harassment via character assassination, and an unlawful demand for ₹10,00,000

The Court reasoned that these allegations, on their face, were sufficient to constitute the offenses under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The Court rejected the petitioner’s factual defenses—such as his professional status and the nature of the marriage—noting that evaluating the truthfulness of such claims would require a "mini trial"

Since the trial had already commenced and charges were framed, the Court held it was improper to interfere, as the evaluation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the trial court

The Court dismissed the Cr.M.P., maintaining that it would not appreciate evidence or conduct a mini trial at this belated stage. The prayer to quash the FIR, cognizance order, and the order framing charges was denied