A Magistrate must implement a High Court’s direction to proceed under Section 319 despite an earlier quashing order.

The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 19 in a case concerning alleged misuse and alienation of a society’s properties.

In 2020, the High Court quashed the final report against him.

During the subsequent trial of the other accused, evidence from PWs 1–5 implicated the petitioner and another person.

The Magistrate dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; on revision, the High Court set aside that dismissal and directed proceedings against them.

The Magistrate then transferred the case to the Special Court dealing with cases relating to MPs and MLAs, which issued summons to the petitioner.

He sought to quash those summons, relying on the 2020 quashing order and asserting that he had not been heard in the revision.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the court conducting an inquiry or trial to proceed against a person who, on the evidence before it, appears to have committed an offence.

A subordinate court is bound to implement a direction of the High Court; it cannot disregard that direction when issuing process.

The High Court also exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in considering the petitioner’s request to quash the summons.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The High Court found that the earlier quashing order did not prevent proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence subsequently given at trial.

The 2025 revisional order had considered the 2020 quashing order and directed the Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner; the petitioner had also been represented in that revision.

The Magistrate therefore had no discretion to disregard the High Court’s direction and was required to issue summons.

Any challenge to the merits or validity of the 2025 revisional order had to be brought against that order itself, rather than by challenging the Magistrate’s act of implementing it.

It clarified that dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from challenging the High Court’s order dated 25 April 2025 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 1043 of 2023.