Inherent powers cannot be exercised to quash criminal proceedings involving disputed questions of fact and prima facie evidence.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash FIR No. 78/2023 and the subsequent charge-sheet.

The case originated from a fatal road accident involving a truck (CG04-CW-1184) that killed two people.

While the truck was registered to one Akbar Solanki, police investigation revealed the chassis number was tampered with and the vehicle was allegedly being operated by the petitioner for business.

Consequently, additional charges under Section 420 IPC and various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act were added.

The petitioner contended he was not the registered owner and was falsely implicated based on unverified documents and inconsistent witness statements.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when a charge-sheet has been filed and prima facie evidence exists on record.

2. Whether disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and the veracity of witness statements can be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the settled principle that quashing is not permissible if the material collected during investigation discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

The court emphasized that at this stage, it does not embark upon an inquiry into the reliability of allegations or appreciate evidence in detail, as these are matters for trial.

The Court observed that the investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet based on the seizure of the offending vehicle, spot inspection, and witness statements.

Specifically, surveyor reports confirmed the chassis number was tampered with, and memorandum statements linked the petitioner to the operation of the vehicle.

The Court reasoned that these facts established a prima facie case for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, and 420 of the IPC, alongside Motor Vehicles Act violations.

It rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding lack of legal ownership and inconsistent statements, categorizing them as "disputed questions of fact" that must be tested through evidence during trial rather than at the threshold of a quashing petition.

It answered that criminal proceedings should not be interdicted when a prima facie case is made out.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to raise all defences before the trial court, clarifying that its observations were limited to the disposal of the quashing petition.