Inherent jurisdiction to quash tax offence proceedings fails where the challenge raises evidentiary issues and no abuse of process is shown.

Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC will not be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or a charge under section 278 of the Income-tax Act where the challenge turns on absence of material and issues that are essentially evidentiary. The High Court held that it cannot step into the Magistrate's role at that stage, and interference is justified only when the record discloses clear abuse of process or gross injustice. As no such circumstance was shown, the Court declined to quash the proceedings and charge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings and charge under section 278 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The petition sought interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the challenge to the charge was based on the absence of material and raised questions that were essentially matters of evidence. The Court held that it could not assume the role of the Magistrate at that stage. Interference under the inherent jurisdiction required a clear case of abuse of the process of court or gross injustice apparent from the record, and no such circumstance was shown.

Conclusion: The Court declined to quash the proceedings and charge, and the petition failed.

---