Inherent quashing jurisdiction can be used where a complaint lacks specific allegations and prosecution becomes oppressive.

Section 482 CrPC may be invoked sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and quashing is appropriate where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose the offence or where the prosecution is oppressive or vexatious. Applying that standard, the complaint contained no specific allegations against the appellants, the material showed they had been living at different places for long periods, and the cruelty and harassment claims were unsupported by any connecting evidence. The complaint and summoning order were therefore liable to be quashed insofar as they concerned the appellants, and the High Court's refusal to interfere was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint and summoning order, when the complaint contained no specific allegations against the appellants and the allegations showed that the dispute was essentially matrimonial in nature.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. A complaint may be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose the offence alleged, where the proceedings are oppressive or vexatious, or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to harassment. On the facts, the appellants were shown to be living at different places for long periods, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint or witness statements, and the allegations of cruelty and harassment were not supported by any material connecting them with the alleged incidents.

Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order, insofar as they concerned the appellants, were liable to be quashed. The refusal of the High Court to interfere was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---