Inherent criminal jurisdiction may still be used despite revision, and prosecution may be quashed when departmental exoneration matches the same allegations.

Availability of a revision against rejection of discharge did not bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC; the decisive question remained whether intervention was needed to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The criminal proceedings were then considered unsustainable because the applicant had been exonerated on merits in a departmental enquiry arising from the same allegations, and the record in the criminal case did not prima facie disclose forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation. In those circumstances, continuation of the prosecution was treated as abuse of process, and the refusal to discharge was described as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the availability of a revision against the order rejecting discharge; (ii) Whether the F.I.R., charge-sheet, and the order refusing discharge were liable to be quashed in view of the applicant's exoneration in the departmental enquiry and the absence of prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the availability of a revision against the order rejecting discharge.

Analysis: The existence of a revisional remedy does not by itself bar the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The decisive consideration is whether the case discloses abuse of process or calls for intervention to secure the ends of justice. The availability of a revision was therefore not treated as an absolute fetter on the High Court's inherent powers.

Conclusion: The application under Section 482 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the F.I.R., charge-sheet, and the order refusing discharge were liable to be quashed in view of the applicant's exoneration in the departmental enquiry and the absence of prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.

Analysis: The departmental enquiry, founded on substantially the same allegations, ended in exoneration on merits, with a finding that at worst the applicant had been negligent in supervision. The criminal case was based on the same factual matrix and the material collected did not prima facie show forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation by the applicant. Continuing the prosecution in these circumstances would amount to abuse of process. The question of sanction was held to be immaterial in view of this conclusion.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed and the order refusing discharge was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The applicant obtained complete relief, as the criminal proceedings founded on the same allegations as the departmental enquiry were terminated and the discharge refusal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person is exonerated on merits in a departmental enquiry on the same allegations and the record in the criminal case does not disclose the prima facie ingredients of the offence, continuation of the prosecution constitutes abuse of process and may be quashed under inherent jurisdiction.

---