https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456767 Quashing of criminal proceedings in writ jurisdiction is an exceptional remedy and should not be ordered on incomplete materials unless the complaint is clearly barred, patently absurd, inherently improbable, or the abuse of process is established with sufficient certainty. Mere adverse features in the complaint do not justify termination while evidence is still unfolding. Delay in the proceeding also does not by itself warrant quashing; the court must assess responsibility for the delay and whether prejudice amounting to denial of speedy trial under Article 21 is shown on the record. Where delay is substantially linked to the accused's objections or interlocutory steps, continuation of the prosecution is ordinarily permitted. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:19:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456767 Quashing of criminal proceedings in writ jurisdiction is an exceptional remedy and should not be ordered on incomplete materials unless the complaint is clearly barred, patently absurd, inherently improbable, or the abuse of process is established with sufficient certainty. Mere adverse features in the complaint do not justify termination while evidence is still unfolding. Delay in the proceeding also does not by itself warrant quashing; the court must assess responsibility for the delay and whether prejudice amounting to denial of speedy trial under Article 21 is shown on the record. Where delay is substantially linked to the accused's objections or interlocutory steps, continuation of the prosecution is ordinarily permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456767