Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot justify release of disputed share-sale proceeds during an ongoing fraud investigation.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to order release of sale proceeds of shares when the transaction is under investigation for cheating and conspiracy. Where the charge-sheet showed that the main accused was absconding and the respondent's role could be determined only after further investigation, the High Court could not record a finding that the respondent had no role in the alleged fraud or effectively conduct a mini trial. The direction to release the money was therefore beyond the permissible limits of Section 482 CrPC, was set aside, and the funds were directed to remain with the BSE pending trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, could direct release of the sale proceeds of shares in favour of the respondent while investigation into the alleged fraud was still pending.

Analysis: The sale proceeds arose from a transaction under investigation for cheating and conspiracy. The charge-sheet indicated that the main accused was absconding and that the role of the respondent could be determined only after further investigation. In these circumstances, the High Court could not record a finding that the respondent had no role in the alleged fraud or direct release of the money as that would amount to a mini trial and would prejudice the ongoing investigation. The earlier courts had rightly refused release at that stage.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible limits of Section 482 CrPC. The direction releasing the sale value of the shares was unsustainable and was set aside. The funds were ordered to remain with the BSE during the pendency of the trial.

---