Disputed directorship and criminal liability cannot be decided in inherent quashing proceedings when factual questions remain unresolved.

Disputed questions about whether an accused had ceased to be a director on the date of the alleged offence, and whether liability could still attach for acts attributed to other directors, cannot be resolved in a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court held that such contested factual matters require evidence and must be determined by the trial court, because the inherent jurisdiction is not intended for adjudicating disputed facts. Relief was therefore refused, leaving the factual controversy to be tried in the criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim that he had ceased to be a director on the date of the alleged offence, and his consequent liability for offences committed by other directors, could be determined in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The asserted cessation from directorship and the question of liability for acts attributed to other directors involved disputed factual questions. Such factual controversies require evidence and determination by the trial court. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not meant for resolving contested facts of this nature.

Conclusion: The issue could not be decided in the quashing petition, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the controversy turned on factual disputes that had to be adjudicated by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions of fact affecting criminal liability cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---