Murder proceedings cannot be quashed where allegations raise seriously disputed questions of fact.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 404/2026, arising from Crime No. 353/2025, for alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner murdered his daughter-in-law, Pramoda, at her home and attempted to conceal evidence.

The police investigated and filed a charge sheet, after which the matter was committed to the Court of Session.

The petitioner argued that gaps in the prosecution case and witness statements justified quashing.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS.

2. Whether the disputed factual issues and alleged deficiencies in the prosecution evidence warranted interference at this stage.

The petition invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief, including quashing proceedings where warranted.

The Court referred to this jurisdiction as the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The charges were under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS; the judgment identifies Section 103(1) as the provision punishing murder.

The Court applied the principle that quashing is not warranted where the case involves seriously disputed questions of fact and allegations of a grave offence requiring adjudication.

The Court considered the complaint and the charge-sheet summary, which set out allegations linking the petitioner to the killing and the subsequent concealment of evidence.

In the Court’s view, the case involved serious factual disputes and an allegation of brutal murder; those matters were not suitable for resolution in the quashing petition.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the pending Sessions proceedings.

The proceedings in S.C. No. 404/2026 against the petitioner were not quashed.