Quashing on an overruled precedent cannot stand; proceedings must be reconsidered under the binding law in force.

A quashing order under Section 482 of the Code cannot stand when it rests on a High Court precedent that has already been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Court found that failure to consider the binding effect of the later Supreme Court judgment led to an erroneous disposal of the petitions, so the matter had to be reconsidered on the correct legal position and other relevant aspects. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the connected matters were remitted for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of an overruled decision and without considering the binding effect of the Supreme Court judgment, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: The challenge before the Court arose from the High Court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court had relied on a Patna High Court decision that had already been set aside by this Court, and the binding decision reversing that view had not been brought to the High Court's notice. The Court held that such omission led to an erroneous disposal of the petitions and that the matter required reconsideration on merits in the light of the correct legal position and other relevant aspects.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were not finally terminated, and the connected petitions were restored to the High Court for decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A quashing order founded on a precedent already overruled by this Court cannot stand, and the proceeding must be reconsidered on the basis of the binding law in force.

---