Disputed factual defenses cannot be adjudicated in inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and two co-accused took his nine-year-old daughter on the assurance that they would care for and educate her, but made her perform domestic work, including cleaning utensils, sweeping, and cleaning school washrooms.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the petitioner and co-accused under Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She argued, among other things, that her marriage took place on 16 June 2022, the day before the alleged occurrence, and that she had no role in the alleged conduct.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and the material collected during investigation.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim that she could not have been involved, including because of the timing of her marriage and her alleged lack of role, could be determined in a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS.

2. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and proceedings warranted quashing at that stage.

Section 528 of the BNSS was the basis of the petitioner’s request to quash the criminal proceedings.

The Court held that disputed questions of fact and evidence concerning the accused’s defence are to be adjudicated at trial, and that it would not conduct a fishing inquiry into the correctness of the evidence and material accompanying the charge-sheet.

The prosecution arose under Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act; the State relied specifically on Section 75, which addresses cruelty to a child by a person having the child in their actual charge or control.

The Court cited no precedent.

The petitioner’s arguments about her marriage date and lack of involvement depended on assessing contested facts and evidence.

The Court considered those matters unsuitable for determination in its Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction and held that they should be raised before the trial court. It declined to assess the correctness of the material collected with the charge-sheet and therefore found no basis to interfere at that stage.

It left the petitioner at liberty to raise her stated and other available grounds before the trial court, which was directed to decide them on their merits and in accordance with law.