Prima facie incriminating material defeats quashing when the accused's defence requires factual trial scrutiny.

Where the record discloses prima facie material of fraudulent credit, misuse of a digital signature, and an admitted deposit linked to an alleged wrongful refund scheme, a quashing petition will not succeed. Approver statements and other incriminating circumstances were treated as sufficient to require trial, and the accused's defence could not be examined in detail at the quash stage. Disputed facts and weighing of evidence were reserved for the trial court, so the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the accused deserved to be quashed in the face of prima facie material and whether the defence raised by him could be examined at the quash stage.

Analysis: The material on record showed a fraudulent credit in the petitioner's account, misuse of his digital signature, and an admitted deposit linked to the alleged wrongful refund scheme. The allegations were supported by approver statements and other incriminating circumstances, which were sufficient to proceed to trial. At the stage of quashing, the Court would not undertake a detailed appraisal of the defence or weigh disputed facts, as such exercise is reserved for the trial court.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the merits disclosed and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record discloses a prima facie case supported by incriminating material, the Court will not evaluate the accused's defence in a quashing petition and the matter must proceed to trial.

---