Inherent quashment power cannot end interconnected prosecutions where disputed cheque-related issues require trial and evidence.

The Kerala HC stated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash a prosecution at the threshold where the final report and a pending Section 138 NI Act complaint are interconnected and the defence overlaps with issues in the connected case. Allegations that a blank cheque leaf and signed papers were misused raised disputed factual questions of cheating and criminal breach of trust, which required trial and evidence rather than summary interference. The request to quash the final report was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to raise all contentions before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the final report could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction when they were stated to be connected with a pending prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The allegations in the final report were that the accused misused a blank cheque leaf and signed papers and thereby committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioners relied on the pending cheque dishonour prosecution to contend that the present case was a counterblast and that no offence was made out. The Court found that the rival cases were interconnected and that the defence raised by the petitioners in the quash petition overlapped with the subject matter of the pending complaint. In such circumstances, the disputed issues were matters for trial and evidence, not for summary interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The request to quash the final report was rejected, and the petitioners were left free to raise all contentions before the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The criminal miscellaneous case was not maintainable for quashing at the threshold because the dispute required adjudication on evidence in the connected proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power to quash should not be used to terminate a prosecution at the threshold where the rival cases are interconnected and the disputed issues require evidence and trial.

---