Pre-charge discharge and quashing are premature; objections must be raised before the trial court at the framing of charge stage.

A pre-charge request for discharge or quashing was treated as premature where no prosecution witness had been examined. The High Court stated that objections to criminal liability, including defences relating to a petitioner's role in the firm and any jurisdictional challenge, should be raised before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge. It further noted that any question of jurisdiction should be considered first by the trial court, and if required, the matter could be transferred to the proper court. The proceeding was therefore not interfered with at that stage, and the accused were left to pursue their objections in the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could be discharged or the criminal proceeding quashed at the stage before framing of charge, when no prosecution witness had yet been examined.

Analysis: The application sought interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, but the petitioners had already moved the trial court for discharge. The order under challenge showed that the trial court had declined to pass any discharge order because the stage for framing of charge had not been reached and no prosecution evidence had been led. The Court held that the question whether the accused should be discharged or charged must be considered in accordance with the procedure under the criminal law at the proper stage, and that the petitioners should be permitted to raise all their objections, including those relating to responsibility for the firm and other defences, at the stage of charge. The Court also noted that the question of jurisdiction, if any, could be considered first by the trial court and, if necessary, the case could be transferred to the proper court.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing/discharge at the pre-charge stage was not entertained, and the petitioners were relegated to raise all objections before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was allowed to continue, with the petitioners left to pursue their defences and jurisdictional objections before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A discharge or quashing request made before the stage of framing of charge, when no prosecution evidence has been led, is premature and must be considered only at the proper procedural stage.

---