Disputed facts and evidentiary defences must be adjudicated at trial, not in quashing proceedings.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint concerning an alleged incident was registered as Crime No. 94 of 2024; following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners, and proceedings were pending in C.C. No. 5193 of 2024 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan

The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings, asserting that the incident occurred differently and that the wound certificate was unreliable because it was issued by a private hospital despite the complaint referring to treatment at a Government Hospital

The petitioners had also lodged a complaint concerning the same occurrence, resulting in separate proceedings that had reached the evidence stage

Whether the charge sheet and pending criminal proceedings should be quashed where the petitioners’ grounds turn on competing accounts of the incident and a challenge to the wound certificate

Whether the High Court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, may decide disputed factual matters requiring appreciation of evidence

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court; the Court held that this jurisdiction does not permit detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudication of disputed questions of fact that constitute the accused’s defence

Where the charge sheet contains material, including witness statements supporting the prosecution case, and the parties present competing versions of an occurrence, the factual dispute is for the trial court to determine upon appreciation of evidence

The petitioners’ assertions about how the incident occurred and the authenticity or reliability of the wound certificate raised factual issues rather than grounds capable of determination through the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction

The investigation had recorded statements of several witnesses supporting the prosecution, while the petitioners’ complaint had generated a competing version of the same occurrence

The Court therefore left those matters for adjudication at trial and found no basis to quash the proceedings

Pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed as not surviving for consideration