Quashing of criminal proceedings refused where allegations disclosed offences and disputed facts required trial, not inherent jurisdiction.

Quashing was refused because the charge-sheet disclosed cognizable offences and the defence raised disputed questions of fact, including reliance on a de facto complainant's statement and the existence of a civil suit. The Court held that such factual controversies could not be resolved in a quashing petition and did not justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The criminal proceedings were therefore permitted to continue, with exemption from personal appearance before the trial court unless specifically required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the allegations were false and arose out of a civil dispute.

Analysis: The petition rested on factual objections, including reliance on the de facto complainant's statement and the pendency of a civil suit between the parties. The allegations in the charge-sheet disclosed offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The Court held that the case did not fall within the category of matters warranting quashing on the principles governing such relief, since the controversy turned on disputed factual issues that could not be resolved in a petition of this nature.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the charge-sheet was rejected and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

Final Conclusion: The criminal original petition was dismissed, though the petitioner was granted exemption from personal appearance before the trial court unless specifically required.

Ratio Decidendi: Quashing is not warranted where the complaint discloses cognizable offences and the defence depends on disputed questions of fact that require trial.

---