Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal complaints is limited once trial has advanced and objections can still be raised before trial court.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal complaints should ordinarily not be exercised when the trial has substantially progressed and the accused can still raise their objections before the trial court. Where prosecution evidence has already been recorded and the matter is nearing conclusion, the High Court should avoid entering into the merits of the allegations or making findings that may prejudice either side. The availability of an effective remedy before the trial court weighs against intervention under inherent powers, and the petitioners must pursue their defences in that forum. On those grounds, quashing was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers to quash criminal complaints when the trial has substantially progressed and the petitioners can raise their objections before the trial court.

Analysis: The proceedings had reached an advanced stage, with prosecution witnesses already examined and the matter nearing its conclusion. In such circumstances, the Court considered it inappropriate to enter upon the merits of the allegations or to record any finding that might prejudice either side before the criminal court. The Court also noted that the petitioners were free to raise all contentions before the trial court, which would decide the matter on merits. The availability of the specific procedural remedy before the trial court weighed against intervention under the inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to quash the complaints and left the petitioners to agitate their defences before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to quash criminal proceedings when the trial is at an advanced stage and an effective statutory remedy remains available before the trial court.

---