Inherent criminal jurisdiction survives the evidence stage; identical departmental exoneration on merits can justify quashing prosecution.

Section 482 CrPC remains available even after a criminal case has reached the evidence stage, because the power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice is not lost before judgment; the objection that the petition had become infructuous was rejected. Where the same allegations had already led to exoneration on merits in departmental proceedings, and that exoneration had become final, continuation of a criminal prosecution on identical facts was treated as futile, inherently improbable, and an abuse of process. On that basis, the criminal proceeding was liable to be quashed and the petitioner was entitled to discharge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had become infructuous because the criminal case had progressed to the stage of evidence. (ii) Whether the criminal proceeding deserved to be quashed where the petitioner had already been exonerated on merits in the departmental proceeding on the same allegations.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had become infructuous because the criminal case had progressed to the stage of evidence.

Analysis: The stage of the criminal case by itself did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remains available to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and can be invoked even after the trial has moved forward, so long as the matter has not reached judgment.

Conclusion: The objection of infructuousness was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal proceeding deserved to be quashed where the petitioner had already been exonerated on merits in the departmental proceeding on the same allegations.

Analysis: The allegations in the departmental and criminal proceedings were identical. The departmental finding of guilt had been set aside on merits for want of supporting documents, and the exoneration had become absolute since no fresh disciplinary inquiry was pursued. Applying the principle that, where exoneration on merits shows the allegation to be unsustainable and the criminal case rests on the same facts, continuation of prosecution would be futile, the Court held that the higher criminal standard could not be met when the lower departmental standard had already failed on merits. The case was also treated as fitting the categories of abuse of process and inherently improbable allegations.

Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was liable to be quashed and the petitioner was entitled to discharge.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was exercised to terminate the prosecution arising from the special case, as continuing it would amount to abuse of the process of court and would not serve the ends of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person has been exonerated on merits in disciplinary proceedings on identical allegations, continuation of a criminal prosecution on the same facts is impermissible if the allegations are found unsustainable and prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

---