Disputed facts and defence evidence cannot be assessed in quashing proceedings; they must be tested at trial.

The prosecution alleged that petitioners 1 and 2 attempted to stop the second respondent’s vehicle and, later, abused and assaulted him with petitioners 3 and 4.

The complainant also reported that ₹20,000 was missing from his vehicle.

Police registered Crime No. 498 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and filed a charge sheet, which was taken cognizance of as C.C. No. 100 of 2026.

The accused sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), asserting that the allegations were baseless.

The State submitted that the trial had commenced and some witnesses had been examined.

Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 100 of 2026 should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the grounds raised by the petitioners.

Whether deciding the petition required assessment of disputed facts or the validity of the evidence, matters the Court considered appropriate for trial.

Section 528 of the BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent power, which the Court considered in the context of the petition to quash criminal proceedings.

Relying on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, reported as 2019 (10) SCC 686, the Court stated that a High Court should not record findings on disputed facts and that the accused’s defence is to be tested at trial.

Relying on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi and Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, the Court stated that, in considering a quash petition, it should not enquire into the validity of the evidence; it should consider whether the allegations, accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and whether cognizance prerequisites were met.

The Court found specific allegations against the petitioners and noted the medical evidence that the complainant had been beaten and sustained simple injuries.

It concluded that the allegations were sufficient to constitute the charged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and 303(2) of the BNS.

Because the petitioners’ grounds raised matters involving disputed facts and the assessment of evidence—and the trial had already commenced—the Court declined to evaluate those matters in the quash proceedings.

It also held that the alleged malicious initiation of proceedings could not be determined at that stage and should be considered at the conclusion of the trial.

It dispensed with their personal appearance, subject to representation by counsel upon filing an appropriate application, but required their presence for furnishing copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of the BNSS, and pronouncement of judgment.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.