Prima facie scrutiny at quashing stage bars defence evaluation and leaves disputed possession issues for discharge proceedings.

At the summoning and quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the Court confined itself to whether a prima facie case existed and refused to assess the accused's defence. Contested factual questions about possession of the premises and the effect of the pleaded family arrangement were held unsuitable for determination in inherent jurisdiction. The Court noted that the applicant could raise those matters before the trial court by seeking discharge under the relevant criminal procedure provisions. On that basis, the challenge to the summoning order and complaint proceedings was rejected and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and the criminal complaint proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The dispute raised before the Court involved contested questions of fact concerning the alleged entitlement to remain in possession of the premises and the effect of the family arrangement pleaded by the applicant. The Court held that, at the stage of summoning and quashing, only a prima facie case is to be examined and the defence of the accused cannot be evaluated. It further noted that the applicant has an adequate opportunity to seek discharge before the trial court under the relevant provisions of criminal procedure.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and the complaint proceedings was rejected, and the application was dismissed.

---