Section 482 CrPC cannot decide disputed facts at threshold; quashing was set aside and matter remitted after notice.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash an FIR on the basis of seriously disputed facts or the accused's defence version at the threshold; such issues must be tested by evidence at trial, so the quashing order was unsustainable. A revisional order passed without notice to the respondent suffered from procedural defect, but the proper course was to set it aside and remit the matter for fresh hearing after notice. The quashing relief was therefore undone, the proceedings were restored, and the revisional court was directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of disputed facts and the defence version of the accused. (ii) Whether the revisional order, passed without notice to the respondent, could be allowed to stand in its entirety or had to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of disputed facts and the defence version of the accused.

Analysis: The material controversy was whether the foreign contributions were received from foreign entities without prior permission or were merely routed gifts from the respondent's father. This was a seriously disputed factual question. The High Court had proceeded on contested statements and had recorded findings on disputed matters at the threshold stage, although such defence could be tested only after evidence was led at trial. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction was therefore found to be excessive and legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The quashing of the FIR and proceedings was unjustified and the High Court's order on this aspect could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order, passed without notice to the respondent, could be allowed to stand in its entirety or had to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The absence of notice could justify interference with the revisional order to the extent necessary to cure the procedural defect. However, that defect did not warrant restoring the entire quashing relief granted by the High Court. The appropriate course was to set aside the revisional order and remit the matter to the revisional court for reconsideration after issuing notice and hearing the respondent.

Conclusion: The revisional order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the stage for determination in accordance with law, while the revisional court was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to decide seriously disputed questions of fact at the threshold, and a procedurally defective revisional order should ordinarily be set aside and remitted for fresh hearing rather than being sustained in whole.

---