Inherent quashing jurisdiction may be invoked again when changed circumstances and no prima facie case justify ending prosecution.

Section 561A preserves the High Court's inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, and a second quashing application may be entertained where materially changed circumstances arise after an earlier refusal. The note also states that continuance of criminal proceedings may be quashed when the record discloses no prima facie case and the prosecution has remained stagnant for a substantial period. The operative principle is that inherent jurisdiction is situation-sensitive and may be invoked afresh to avoid unjust continuation of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain a second application under its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings after an earlier application for the same relief had been rejected. (ii) Whether the continuance of the prosecution disclosed any prima facie case or amounted to an abuse of the process of court warranting quashing.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain a second application under its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings after an earlier application for the same relief had been rejected.

Analysis: The power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preservative in nature and may be invoked having regard to the situation prevailing when the application is made. A later application is not barred merely because an earlier request for quashing was declined, where the later application is founded on materially different circumstances. The earlier refusal here was based on the then existing stage of the case, whereas the prosecution had thereafter remained stagnant for a substantial period.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to entertain the subsequent application and did not act without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the continuance of the prosecution disclosed any prima facie case or amounted to an abuse of the process of court warranting quashing.

Analysis: The inherent power is meant to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. On the facts then obtaining, the prosecution had made no progress for a long period and the materials did not disclose a prima facie case against the accused persons sufficient to justify continuation of the proceeding.

Conclusion: The proceeding was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed, and the quashing of the criminal proceeding was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent application under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is maintainable where materially changed circumstances justify reconsideration, and the proceeding may be quashed to prevent abuse of process when no prima facie case is made out.

---