Inherent jurisdiction cannot replace statutory withdrawal procedure when quashing criminal proceedings based on the State's intent to withdraw prosecution.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings merely because the State states that it intends to withdraw the prosecution. A proposed withdrawal under Section 321 must be considered independently by the trial court in accordance with law, and the High Court cannot bypass that statutory process by acting on the State's statement alone. A further direction restraining the police and Magistrate from prosecuting the accused exceeded the High Court's jurisdiction. The impugned quashing orders were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the criminal proceedings restored subject to any withdrawal application being dealt with by the competent court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure solely on the basis of the State's stated decision to withdraw the prosecution, and whether the accompanying direction to the police and Magistrate not to prosecute the accused was sustainable.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations of cognizable offences and the quashing petition before the High Court required examination on its own merits within the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction. A proposed or intended withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a matter for the trial court to consider in accordance with law, and the High Court could not substitute that statutory process by accepting a statement from the State and quashing the proceedings on that ground alone. The further direction restraining the police and the Magistrate from prosecuting the accused went beyond the High Court's jurisdiction in such proceedings.

Conclusion: The High Court's orders quashing the FIR and directing that the accused not be prosecuted were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in relief to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were restored to the extent that the impugned quashing orders were nullified, leaving any withdrawal application to be dealt with independently by the competent court according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be used to quash criminal proceedings merely because the State intends to withdraw the prosecution; the statutory decision under Section 321 must be independently considered by the trial court, and directions exceeding that framework are without jurisdiction.

---