The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings based on disputed facts pre-trial; such matters are for the trial court.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2024 on the file of the District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Kilvelur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2024 at about 7:00 A.M., the second respondent was carrying out construction work on her property. At that time, the petitioners allegedly trespassed into the property and obstructed the ongoing construction. A verbal altercation ensued between the parties, which escalated into a physical confrontation, during which both sides allegedly attacked each other, resulting in internal injuries. That apart, it is alleged that the petitioners issued life threats to the second respondent. Based on this incident, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 214 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 74, 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. After the completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilvelur, and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.428 of 2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are false, fabricated, and politically motivated. It was argued that there is no prima facie material to proceed as against the petitioners and that the entire case is civil in nature, relating to a property dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity with the second respondent. He further submitted that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken at face value, they do not make out the ingredients of the offences alleged. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the quash petition, stating that the investigation has been completed and the final report has been filed based on sufficient materials collected during the course of investigation. It was submitted that there are specific allegations made as against the petitioners regarding trespass, obstruction of construction, physical assault, and issuance of life threats. The injuries sustained and the gravity of the incident are supported by witness statements and medical records. Therefore, it was contended that the matter involves triable issues which require full-fledged trial, and that the quash petition is premature and liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. After hearing both sides carefully, this Court is of the considered view that there are specific and prima facie allegations made as against the petitioners, which attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 329(4) , 296(b), 74 , 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS. The final report is based on the statements of witnesses and other supporting evidence, and cannot be said to be inherently improbable or devoid of legal substance. The power under Section 528 of BNSS ., to quash the criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, as provided, in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is manifestly attended with mala fide. In the present case, the dispute involves questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence during the trial. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the veracity of the allegations.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019), while dealing with a petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings, held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statements of witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements, and therefore, no prima faci