Quashing after charge-framing is unwarranted where the charge-sheet discloses prima facie material and factual disputes remain.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a clerk at the Ballari RTO, demanded money to transfer a vehicle into the complainant’s name.

During a trap on 17 December 2020, ₹700 was recovered from Accused No. 2; the charge-sheet alleged that Accused No. 2 had demanded ₹1,400 and handed ₹700 to the petitioner.

The charge-sheet also relied on a voice recording and FSL reports.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, disputing demand, acceptance, and the existence of material connecting him to the offence.

By the time the petition was considered, the Special Court had framed charges and posted the matter for trial.

Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting continuation of the proceedings

Whether the High Court should quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS where charges had been framed and the petitioner’s objections involved disputed questions of fact

The petition invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of proceedings for an alleged offence under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Once charges have been framed and the matter set down for trial, the High Court should be slow to exercise its quashing jurisdiction; it also held that disputed questions of fact, including the alleged demand and acceptance, are not to be adjudicated in such a petition.

The Court referred generally to decisions of the Supreme Court but did not identify them.

The Court found prima facie material in the charge-sheet: the alleged demand and receipt of money, Accused No. 2’s statement that ₹700 was handed to the petitioner, and the voice recording and FSL reports concerning the alleged bribe demand.

The petitioner’s arguments that the money was recovered from Accused No. 2 and that no demand or acceptance by the petitioner was established raised factual disputes for trial.

Given that charges had already been framed, the Court found no exceptional circumstance justifying quashing.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also dismissed.