Inherent and revisional power cannot quash late-stage criminal proceedings on disputed facts or evidence appraisal.

Inherent or revisional jurisdiction should not be used to quash criminal proceedings at a late stage by weighing disputed facts or evidence. Where a judicial enquiry is complete, charges are framed, and prosecution evidence is substantially recorded, questions such as alleged suppression of facts, entrustment, or breach of trust must ordinarily be left to the trial court. Interference is justified only to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice, or correct a glaring legal error causing a miscarriage of justice. On these principles, the charges and pending proceedings were restored and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal charges and the proceedings at an advanced stage by assessing disputed facts and evidence, and whether such interference was warranted under the High Court's inherent or revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The proceedings had progressed substantially, with a judicial enquiry completed, charges framed, and most of the prosecution evidence already recorded and tested by cross-examination. The matters relied upon by the High Court, including alleged suppression of facts in the complaints and the sufficiency of evidence to establish entrustment and breach of trust, turned on appreciation of evidence and factual adjudication that properly belonged to the trial court. The High Court, while dealing with one contention, correctly declined to decide disputed questions of fact, but it adopted a different approach when considering the later contentions and entered into a detailed evaluation of the evidence to conclude that the offences were not made out. The principles governing inherent jurisdiction require interference only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and revisional power is to be exercised only in exceptional cases involving glaring procedural defect, manifest legal error, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. None of those conditions was shown here, and the proposed examination of the remaining witnesses was not a valid ground to terminate the prosecution.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the charges and the pending proceedings, and the interference was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The criminal trial was directed to proceed before the Magistrate and be concluded expeditiously, with the charges and proceedings restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent or revisional jurisdiction should not be used to quash criminal proceedings at a late stage on disputed factual issues or by weighing evidence, unless the case clearly discloses abuse of process, a manifest legal error, or a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

---