Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where specific allegations prima facie disclose the charged offences.

The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that, on 9 March 2023, the petitioner negligently drove his vehicle into her and caused injuries.

The police registered Crime No. 104 of 2023 for offences under Sections 294(b), 279, 324 and 506(2), and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act; after investigation, the charge sheet was taken on file as C.C. No. 309 of 2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, asserting that the second respondent was his sister-in-law and that the parties were involved in a pending property dispute.

1. Whether the charge-sheet proceedings in C.C. No. 309 of 2025 should be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioner, including the alleged property dispute and purported malice.

2. Whether the High Court could assess the evidence or the consistency of witness statements while considering the petition to quash.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351, the Court stated that a High Court exercising quashing jurisdiction should not assess witness statements or determine inconsistencies in the evidence; those matters are for the trial or appellate court.

Relying on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, the Court stated that the quashing court considers whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and whether the prerequisites for cognizance have been met; the accused’s ability to disprove the allegations is a matter for trial.

The Court found that the record contained specific allegations against the petitioner capable of attracting the charged offences.

Applying the limits on quashing jurisdiction set out in the cited Supreme Court decisions, it declined to evaluate the evidence or resolve whether the proceedings were malicious; the latter question was left for consideration at the conclusion of trial.

The asserted property dispute therefore did not warrant quashing at this stage.

His personal appearance was dispensed with, subject to his being represented by counsel after filing an appropriate application; he must appear for furnishing of copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of the BNSS, and pronouncement of judgment.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.