with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. In the instant case, foundation of criminal offences was not laid against the applicants, in as much as, the ingredients of the offences alleged against them were not, even prima facie, fulfilled. Assuming that what the police personnel stated against them was true, the applicants could not be charged for any offence on the basis of such allegations. Where is the question of Section 171 Cr.P.C. or, for that matter, any other offence under the Indian Penal Code. So far as the accusation of using ‘corrupt practices’ is concerned, the same falls to the ground from the word ‘go’. How can one presume that the currency notes kept in one’s Innova car in a private farm are kept for influencing the electors /voters, may be for the purpose of meeting the expenses of election within permissible limits.
