Disputed factual defences must be tested at trial, not resolved in quash proceedings.

The respondent, a magazine publisher, alleged that the petitioner arranged an advertisement for M/s. Bedrock Detective (P) Ltd. by issuing a release order dated 22 April 2024. The respondent published the advertisement on 8 May 2024, raised invoices, and alleged that the petitioner failed to pay and later denied issuing the release order.

The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, maintaining that he had not issued the release order and that the advertisement was published without his knowledge or consent.

Whether the proceedings could be quashed where the petitioner disputed issuing the release order and the parties’ accounts of the advertisement transaction raised questions of fact requiring evidence.

Whether the petitioner’s disputed defence could be assessed by the High Court in a petition under Section 528 BNSS, rather than at trial.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to consider quashing criminal proceedings, but the court should not resolve disputed questions of fact or assess witness statements and evidentiary validity as though conducting a trial.

At the quashing stage, the court considers whether the complaint’s allegations, taken at face value, disclose the alleged offences and whether the prerequisites for cognizance have been met; the accused’s defence and the truth of contested allegations are ordinarily matters for trial. The Court relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686; and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, as stated in its discussion of these principles.

The petitioner’s denial that he issued the release order directly conflicted with the complaint’s allegation that he had issued it and subsequently denied doing so. Determining which account was true required assessment of evidence, which the Court held was outside the proper scope of the quashing petition.

It treated the petitioner’s claim that the advertisement was published without his knowledge as a defence to be tested at trial, and declined to determine the disputed facts or the alleged maliciousness of the prosecution at this stage.

It directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months of receiving a copy of the order and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.