https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20702 The High Court held that inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should not be invoked at a pre-evidence stage when the accused has an adequate statutory remedy to seek discharge before the Magistrate. Because the matter had not reached the stage for consideration under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused could still contest the prosecution evidence under section 244, the challenge was treated as premature. The Court found that factual questions should be tested before the trial court, and the availability of the specific discharge mechanism made recourse to section 482 inappropriate at that stage. The petition was therefore dismissed as premature. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:54:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20702 The High Court held that inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should not be invoked at a pre-evidence stage when the accused has an adequate statutory remedy to seek discharge before the Magistrate. Because the matter had not reached the stage for consideration under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused could still contest the prosecution evidence under section 244, the challenge was treated as premature. The Court found that factual questions should be tested before the trial court, and the availability of the specific discharge mechanism made recourse to section 482 inappropriate at that stage. The petition was therefore dismissed as premature. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20702