Inherent quashing jurisdiction limited to facial scrutiny; disputed facts over false origin particulars must be tested at trial.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash a complaint is to be exercised cautiously and only to see whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. At that stage, the court does not evaluate the accused's defence or weigh documents relied upon by the accused. The complaint alleged deliberate furnishing of incorrect particulars about the country of origin of goods to evade duty and taxes, which raised disputed questions of fact requiring trial. The complaint and the order framing charges were therefore not liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and consequential charge order were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition invoked inherent powers, but such jurisdiction is to be exercised with caution and is confined to examining whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. At this stage, the Court does not assess the defence version or evaluate documents relied upon by the accused. Since the complaint, on its face, alleged deliberate furnishing of incorrect particulars regarding the country of origin of the goods to evade duty and taxes, the matter raised disputed questions of fact that could be tested only at trial.

Conclusion: The complaint and the order framing charges were not liable to be quashed.

---