Criminal complaint not quashed merely because civil remedy exists; prima facie offence must be allowed to proceed.

A criminal complaint is not liable to be quashed merely because the same facts may also give rise to a civil wrong. Where the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence, criminal proceedings may continue even if a civil remedy is also available. The inherent power to quash is confined to preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice, and cannot be used to stop a prosecution at the threshold unless no offence is disclosed. On the facts, the complaint did disclose a prima facie criminal case, so the High Court's quashing order was unsustainable and the complaint was directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal complaint can be quashed merely because the same facts may also give rise to a civil wrong, and whether the High Court was justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint on that ground.

Analysis: The mere availability of a civil remedy does not, by itself, render a criminal complaint unsustainable. Where the allegations disclose the ingredients of an offence, criminal proceedings are maintainable even if the facts may also support a civil claim. Inherent powers to quash are to be used to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but not to stifle a prosecution at the threshold unless the complaint fails to disclose any offence. On the facts, it could not be said at the prima facie stage that no offence was made out, and the High Court did not record a finding that the complaint disclosed no criminal case.

Conclusion: The High Court's quashing order was unsustainable; the criminal complaint was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution cannot be quashed solely because the same facts may also constitute a civil wrong, if the complaint prima facie discloses the ingredients of an offence.

---