Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence where a complaint discloses a prima facie offence and charge is proper.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or to act as a second revisional court after a charge has been framed and affirmed in revision. The statutory distinction between discharge after prosecution evidence and framing of charge means that, where the complaint as a whole discloses the ingredients of the offence and the material supports a prima facie view, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because a defence version appears plausible or the prosecution case may seem weak on a full merits appraisal. The charge was therefore restored and the prosecution allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could quash a charge framed after consideration of prosecution evidence and affirmed in revision, by entering into an appreciation of evidence and the merits of the complaint.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between discharge after prosecution evidence under Section 245 and framing of charge under Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The revisional order of the Sessions Judge had already declined interference with the Magistrate's reasoned order framing charge. In that setting, the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 could be used only sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. It was not open to the High Court to function as a second revisional court or to assess whether the complaint would ultimately end in conviction. Where the complaint, read as a whole, disclosed the ingredients of the offence and there was material justifying a prima facie view, the proceedings could not be quashed merely because the defence version appeared plausible or the court considered the prosecution case weak on a full merits appraisal.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the charge; its order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was directed to continue in accordance with law, and the Magistrate's order framing charge was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or to quash a prosecution that discloses the ingredients of an offence and presents a prima facie case, except to prevent clear abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

---