Disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in proceedings to quash criminal charges.

On 27 September 2011, a fertiliser inspector raided the Dharmatti Society warehouse after receiving information that counterfeit Muriate of Potash fertiliser was stored there for sale.

The inspector seized and sealed fertiliser bags and lodged a complaint.

The prosecution alleged that petitioner No. 1 (Accused No. 6) purchased the fertiliser in Bengaluru and supplied it to the Society, where petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 7) stored it.

The petitioners sought to quash Criminal Case No. 433 of 2014, pending before the JMFC, Mudalagi, for offences under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the IPC.

They argued, among other things, that petitioner No. 2 was merely a Society employee and that the sample had been improperly collected or packed.

By the time the High Court considered the petition, charges had been framed and the case was set down for trial.

Whether the allegations against the petitioners disclosed grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly where their alleged roles were disputed questions of fact.

Whether the manner in which the fertiliser sample was packed warranted quashing the proceedings at that stage.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the Court stated that disputed questions of fact concerning the accused persons’ roles could not be determined in that jurisdiction.

Schedule II, Part A, paragraph 1(e) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, prescribes permissible containers and packaging for fertiliser samples, including a suitable airtight glass or hard polythene bottle, or a thick-gauge polythene bag placed in a sealed cloth bag.

The prosecution material attributed distinct roles to the petitioners: Accused No. 6 allegedly purchased and supplied the fertiliser, while Accused No. 7 allegedly stored it at the Society.

Whether those allegations were true, and whether Accused No. 7’s employment status affected his liability, involved factual questions for trial rather than determination under Section 528.

The Court also found that the sample had been kept in a polythene bag, sealed and sent for testing, and held that the challenge to the sampling and packaging did not justify resolving the matter in the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The trial had already progressed to the framing of charges and was set down for trial.

It left the disputed factual issues for trial and dismissed any pending interlocutory applications.