Disputed questions of fact and sufficiency of evidence cannot be adjudicated in a petition for quashing.

The Petitioner, the registered owner of a truck (No. CG-04 JA-9821) attached to a rice mill, was implicated in a case involving irregularities in paddy transportation

On March 15, 2019, the vehicle was intercepted carrying 500 bags of paddy, allegedly using a reused delivery memo

Consequently, FIR No. 149/2019 was registered at Police Station Sakti under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on June 21, 2023, adding Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, took cognizance of the offences on June 23, 2023

The Petitioner sought to quash the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings, contending he was falsely implicated solely as the vehicle owner and that the investigation was defective due to the absence of the driver's statement or other substantive evidence

1. Whether the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet against the Petitioner merit quashing under the inherent powers of the High Court due to an alleged lack of evidence and defective investigation.

The Court considered Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

Substantively, the case involved Sections 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC

The Court applied the settled legal principle that at the stage of quashing, the High Court must only determine if a prima facie case is disclosed; it cannot adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact or the sufficiency of evidence, which are matters reserved for trial

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s truck was found involved in the alleged offence while transporting a large quantity of paddy under suspicious circumstances, which established a prima facie link to the case

The Bench noted that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet and that the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences

The Petitioner’s arguments—specifically the lack of a driver’s statement, the absence of documentary evidence connecting him to the crime, and his claim of being a mere registered owner—were categorized by the Court as "disputed questions of fact"

The Court reasoned that such defenses and alleged investigative defects cannot be examined under inherent jurisdiction but must be scrutinized by the trial court during the trial process

Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner had been avoiding appearance before the trial court, which contributed to the delay in framing charges

The Court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit, and declined to quash the charge-sheet or the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 714/2023