Inherent quashing power is not used where competence and tax-prosecution objections depend on mixed questions of fact and law.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash a pending prosecution should not be exercised where the challenge turns on mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence and documentary materials not yet on record. The complaint's competence for the alleged Penal Code offences and the effect of the later setting aside of penalty were matters to be raised on a proper factual foundation, not at the threshold. The High Court therefore declined to terminate the prosecution at this stage and left the petitioner free to raise the objections before the trial magistrate in due course.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pending prosecution should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that the complaint was not competent for the alleged offences under the Penal Code and that the tax prosecution was affected by the subsequent setting aside of penalty.

Analysis: The asserted grounds depended on appreciation of evidence and on documentary materials that had not yet been brought on record. The questions raised were therefore mixed questions of fact and law. In such a situation, the Court declined to exercise inherent powers to terminate the prosecution at the threshold, leaving the petitioner free to raise the objections before the trial magistrate at the appropriate stage.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable at this stage and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash should not be exercised where the challenge turns on mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.

---