Inherent quashing jurisdiction is unavailable when no charge is framed and discharge remains available before the trial court.

Petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Income-tax Act prosecutions were found premature where no charge had yet been framed. The proper course in that situation was to move the trial court for discharge under section 245 CrPC, since that court had ample power to consider the request. As an effective alternative remedy existed and no special circumstance justifying interference was shown, the inherent quashing jurisdiction was not attracted at that stage and the relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the criminal prosecutions for offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were maintainable in view of the stage of the proceedings and the availability of a remedy before the trial court.

Analysis: No charge had been framed against the petitioners. In that situation, the proper course was to seek discharge before the trial court, which had ample power to consider such a request under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The existence of such a remedy meant that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 was not attracted on the facts presented, and no circumstance warranting quashing was shown.

Conclusion: The petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not maintainable for quashing the prosecutions at that stage, and the relief was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no charge has yet been framed and an effective remedy of discharge is available before the trial court, the inherent power to quash proceedings should not be invoked absent special circumstances justifying interference.

---