The High Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash an appeal based on limitation or lack of condonation application, as these are matters for the Appellate Court to determine in accordance with law.

Order on Board

1. Heard Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashment of the Criminal Appeal No. 205/2024 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), on the ground that the same is not maintainable being barred by limitation and filed without any application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.05.2019, the complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur against the petitioners herein. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, the police registered First Information Report (FIR) and investigation was initiated. During course of investigation, the complainant and witnesses were summoned and their statements were recorded. In her statement, the complainant stated that she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband Somendra Pandey, sister-in-law Mamta Pandey, mother-in-law Shakun Pandey, and brother-in-law Vikas Pandey. Due to discrepancies between the statement and the FIR, the complainant's sworn statement was recorded, wherein she again mentioned torture by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Upon recording the statements of the witnesses, the names of all four were mentioned. Upon finding evidence of the offence, the husband Somendra Pandey was arrested on 24.05.2019 and subsequently, he was granted bail. The other three accused persons, having obtained anticipatory bail, were formally arrested and released on 23.06.2019 upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each. In this case, a compromise was attempted between the complainant and the accused persons at a counselling centre. The accused had kept the complainant with them to avoid the case, but later began torturing her again and failed to appear at the family counselling centre. With no other option left, the complainant got the case registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on 22.07.2019. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 2622/2019 and learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of India Penal Code (IPC). The accused persons were examined, explained and charged with the offence under Section 498- A read with Section 34 of the IPC. Their defence statements were recorded. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein they stated that they were innocent, falsely implicated, and did not wish to lead defence evidence. After full fledge of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), vide its judgment dated 18.04.2024, acquitted the accused persons/present petitioners of the charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC holding that it is clearly evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons, being the husband and relatives of the complainant, intentionally abused her, misbehaved with her, demanded divorce, subjected her to mental/physical harassment and committed cruelty towards her. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.04.2024, the respondent/State, on 30.11.2024 filed appeal under Section 378(1)A of the CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). The appeal is barred by limitation, but the respondent did not file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, and the same is still pending for consideration. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appeal filed by the respondent/State against