https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182865 Inherent or revisional jurisdiction should not be used to quash criminal proceedings at a late stage by weighing disputed facts or evidence. Where a judicial enquiry is complete, charges are framed, and prosecution evidence is substantially recorded, questions such as alleged suppression of facts, entrustment, or breach of trust must ordinarily be left to the trial court. Interference is justified only to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice, or correct a glaring legal error causing a miscarriage of justice. On these principles, the charges and pending proceedings were restored and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 13:17:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182865 Inherent or revisional jurisdiction should not be used to quash criminal proceedings at a late stage by weighing disputed facts or evidence. Where a judicial enquiry is complete, charges are framed, and prosecution evidence is substantially recorded, questions such as alleged suppression of facts, entrustment, or breach of trust must ordinarily be left to the trial court. Interference is justified only to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice, or correct a glaring legal error causing a miscarriage of justice. On these principles, the charges and pending proceedings were restored and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182865