( 1 ) THESE four petitions involve the common questions of law, viz , (1) whether the partners of a firm are liable for prosecution in addition to the firm represented by its Manager or Managing partner for violation of the terms and conditions of the licence read with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 70 of the andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock) Markets Rules, 1969 for non-compliance of the direction given to the firm to produce the account books and other documents, (2 ). Whether the partners of the firm can be impleaded as accused in a Criminal Prosecution against the firm and (3) Whether this court is entitled to quash the proceedings against such partners who are impleaded as accused in such criminal prosecution in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.

( 2 ) IT is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where any specific remedy is provided by the Statute. Further the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. The limits of the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code were clearly defined by the Supreme Court in raj Kapoor vs State (1) A I R 1980 S C. 258. Where Kiishna Iyer, J. has observed as follows :"even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made; easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code". Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when the High Court acting under the provisions of Section 482 should exercise the inherent power in so far as quashing of criminal proceedings are concerned. This matterwas gone into by the Supreme court in greater detail in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (2) a I R 1976 S. C. 1947. Where the scope of Section 202 and 204 of the code was considered and while laying down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings Could be quashed the supreme Court observed as follows:"thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside; (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recoided in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absured and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can over reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such PS, want of sanction or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash the proceedings. "same view was taken in a later decision by the Supreme Court in Sharda prasad Sinha, vs. State of Bihar AIR 1977 sc 1754 where Bhagwati J. speaking for the court has observed as follows :"it is, now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. "these cases have been, relied on and approved b