https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172872 High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and Section 482 CrPC may be used to quash criminal proceedings where the complaint is untenable and continuance would amount to abuse of process. The availability of discharge before the Magistrate does not, by itself, bar such intervention. On the facts discussed, the complaint and preliminary material did not disclose a prima facie case under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because they failed to connect the accused with manufacture, adulteration, or responsibility for the offending sample. The proceedings were therefore liable to be quashed. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Sep 2015 17:31:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172872 High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and Section 482 CrPC may be used to quash criminal proceedings where the complaint is untenable and continuance would amount to abuse of process. The availability of discharge before the Magistrate does not, by itself, bar such intervention. On the facts discussed, the complaint and preliminary material did not disclose a prima facie case under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because they failed to connect the accused with manufacture, adulteration, or responsibility for the offending sample. The proceedings were therefore liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172872