Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash proceedings for an accused who evaded process and faced proclamation.

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC were held not to justify quashing where the accused had persistently evaded process, warrants had been issued, and proclamation steps had been taken. The acquittal of the co-accused was not treated as a sufficient basis to terminate the proceedings in favour of an absconding accused. The proceedings were allowed to continue, with liberty to the accused to surrender before the Magistrate and, if so advised, seek discharge on available grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court when the accused had remained absconding, proclamation steps had been taken, and the co-accused had already been acquitted.

Analysis: The petition invoked the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek quashing on the basis of the acquittal of the main accused. The record showed that repeated efforts had been taken to secure the petitioner's presence, including issuance of warrant and proclamation under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but he continued to evade process. In these circumstances, the Court held that it was not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers to terminate the proceedings, and that the petitioner should first surrender before the Magistrate and, if so advised, seek discharge on available grounds.

Conclusion: Quashing was declined and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to continue, with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate and pursue discharge in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be exercised to quash proceedings in favour of an accused who has persistently evaded the process of Court and against whom proclamation measures have been taken.

---