Quashing under inherent jurisdiction refused on factual disputes, while personal appearance was relaxed for trial progression.

Section 482 CrPC is not ordinarily invoked to quash pending proceedings where the defence raises factual disputes requiring appreciation of evidence; the petitioner was left to raise those contentions before the trial court, and quashing was declined. The Court nevertheless allowed dispensation of personal appearance, subject to attendance when called for and mandatory presence at the Section 313 CrPC stage and at pronouncement of judgment. The trial court was also directed to conduct the trial day to day and complete it within the fixed time, ensuring expeditious disposal while granting limited relaxation on attendance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the criminal original petition seeking quashing of the pending proceedings could be entertained under the inherent jurisdiction when the grounds raised were factual and required appreciation of evidence; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to dispensation of personal appearance before the trial court, subject to appearance at specified stages and expeditious disposal of the case.

Issue (i): whether the criminal original petition seeking quashing of the pending proceedings could be entertained under the inherent jurisdiction when the grounds raised were factual and required appreciation of evidence.

Analysis: The grounds raised were found to be factual in nature and capable of adjudication only on evidence. In such circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not considered appropriate for interference with the pending proceedings. The petitioner was left open to raise all contentions before the trial court, which was directed to consider them on their own merits and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The request to quash the proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to dispensation of personal appearance before the trial court, subject to appearance at specified stages and expeditious disposal of the case.

Analysis: The Court accepted the request to dispense with the petitioner's presence, while requiring appearance whenever called for and mandating personal presence at the stage of questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and at the time of final judgment. The trial court was also directed to complete the proceedings within a fixed time and to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis.

Conclusion: Personal appearance was dispensed with except for the specified stages, and directions were issued for expeditious trial.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not result in quashing of the proceedings, but the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with limited relaxation regarding the petitioner's personal appearance.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings is not ordinarily exercised where the defence raises factual questions requiring evidence, and the Court may regulate appearance while ensuring expeditious trial.

---