Section 482 CrPC can quash a vindictive complaint when defence material shows the accusation is unsustainable.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may justify quashing where defence material at the pre-trial stage is strong enough to displace bare accusations and continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. On the facts noted, the disputed shares were shown to have been acquired from the funds of the accused and kept in his custody, while the complainant produced no dependable material to support his own-funds claim. Given the surrounding civil and criminal disputes and the vindictive character of the complaint, the prosecution was held liable to be quashed and the discharge application allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the refusal to discharge the accused called for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The material placed by the accused showed that the shares in dispute had been acquired from the funds of appellant no. 1 and had remained in his custody, while the complainant had produced no dependable material beyond bare allegations to show that the acquisition was from his own funds. The complaint arose against the backdrop of prior civil and criminal disputes between the parties and was found to be vindictive in nature. Applying the governing principles for exercise of inherent jurisdiction at the pre-trial stage, the Court held that the defence material was of such quality as to displace the accusation and that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint was liable to be quashed and the discharge application was required to be allowed; the decision was in favour of the appellants.

---