Quashing petition and disputed sanction issues must go to trial where the complaint shows prima facie offences.

A quashing petition challenging prosecution sanction was held unsuitable for inherent jurisdiction because the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations of suppression of turnover and liability under fiscal and allied penal laws. The Court treated the competency of the sanctioning authority and other disputed factual matters as issues for trial, not for determination at the quashing stage. It also noted that the same objection had already been raised in discharge proceedings and revision, and viewed the renewed challenge as an abuse of process. The prosecution was allowed to continue, leaving all contested questions open for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal original petition seeking quashing of the complaint could be entertained when the challenge centered on the competency of the sanctioning authority and the record disclosed prima facie materials requiring trial.

Analysis: The petition raised a challenge to the prosecution sanction and sought quashing of the proceedings under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The record disclosed that the same objection had already been taken in the discharge proceedings and in revision, and the Court found that there were prima facie allegations relating to suppression of turnover and liability under the fiscal enactments as well as allied penal provisions. It was held that the question whether the sanctioning authority was competent, and other disputed factual issues, were matters for trial and could not be examined in proceedings for quashing. The Court also treated the attempt to reopen the same controversy as an abuse of process of Court.

Conclusion: The quashing request was not maintainable on merits and the proceedings were allowed to continue; the petitioner's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise inherent power to interdict the prosecution, leaving all disputed issues open for determination by the trial Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for quashing, the Court will not enter disputed factual questions or test the defence on merits where the complaint discloses prima facie ingredients of the offences and the issue can properly be decided at trial.

---