62K HIQH CCiiiQT Q}: CERA: M56£§2H $§h§fz§3U§z ri e ?%a‘§‘§"réan Nm3§9 6f 2938 Cmimi W’ss; evSimev timgh Sonwm‘i, Sin Lm'a Kwibcaé aga‘i ar ! f\ xvi) I aniv t‘I. Ward No.2, Bum, Tm. <31 515?? m , uu ax JJ Vamw 3udi1ir Kumar Jam, Sfo CEaimga “a: 3am, agad aim-Hf 43 years, R/o EhSp N94. Mwi £0mpiex, Burg! Tah. & Eisff. Burg (C.£?v.) -‘i i § w‘icar‘lf} I A i PT m uner Snacfmrg 432 a? E‘iwa {Ewe of Crimimi :Dmmdum, 1w 3A .4v Wm aszr: Mr. Naeikan Maiavi counsei for The w va; a 5§mie 3anc¥m Horibitz Mr. TP. S i hamm. J. GRAE. $RD§§€ {9nsszd 0n 4*” 52§fambgn 2&3) This pa‘i‘i‘£‘ion is direcfad’ agmns‘f 1"‘ne order dm‘ed 24-7—2008 passed by i’he 1 s? Addi'?i0na} Sessions Ju Durg‘ in Criminai Revisim No.62/2908 affirmi'ag dae. We: order of reisfm‘rim {md mking cognizance 0*? Gffamce dared 236-2605 a passed by "ma Euicia] Magis’rr'cwfs Fér‘sf Cmss, burg in Com§lainf Case d Ns‘i9ZGOS. /2 . e arer is chaiienged as fhe ground That §earned Cour? beiow wifmu? faki‘ag 2 Th d info cons§dam1'§0n ‘rhe ma‘kriai avaiiable on wcord which was n0? sufficien‘? far ‘raking cognizance (md issuance sf process, had "taken coghizcnce and issuad process and ‘i’hus, has cammi??eci iiiegaii‘ry. 3. E have hear-d Mr. Naeikm‘?h Maiaviys, §earnec§ counsai for “rm appiicam cm.‘ nerusad ‘‘ghe impugmd order: PLECIXf AP'NT: (?xié'r‘a—c‘zf3’p§ir;m%}i’ {R} NONAP?LlCFx§3T/ pm W d 5% r t‘j ® $ ~. Mr. Neeikan‘rh Moloviya argued The? one bicmk cheque of “due oppiicon? was m§ssing mad 'he has aiready informed The Poiice é;- bank aufhori‘ries, bu? The said cheque was used by The non-applicmw md wheri i“? was dishonoured, ‘H'te non—appiicaryf has fi§ed comphin‘? under Secfion 138 of fm Negoi‘iabia Inswumenfs Ac? {fer shot“? ‘ihe AC1“). He ‘Furfrkar arguaj‘ {hm friai and con‘rmum‘im of proceedi'ng before The Triai Cour"? wii'i amoun‘r 'a‘o abuse 0’? We process of iaw. I have perused The order impugned and copy of “rhe order dafed 28-32008 gassed by ‘Fha frid‘Courf. By fhe order dafed 28-3—2608 iearneci friai Cour? affer‘ perusing f‘he compmi’n‘r, affidavi? aad fhe documam's, has “faken cognizame under Seal-km 138 of ?he Ac? and issued process agains‘i 'ihe presen‘i‘ appiican‘f. According 1's 'ihe documenis avaiiubie 0n reccmi, one bicmk ciqeque of ‘i‘r‘ie appiican‘? was missing. Nei‘i‘her The said cheque was sigraed nor i‘r was issued in fhe name of any person Learned friai Com"? affer' agyreciming ‘H’ie mu‘ierial avaiiabie on record, has Takeh cagnizance cmd issued ‘ process iN , This is a pei‘ifion filed under Secfion 482 of ‘i’he CrPiC‘ Inferference in exercise of“ inherem Jurisdicfion uncier Seciion 482 of f‘ne Cr.P.Ci can be made in Paves? of rare cases wii‘h a View 'io give effeci‘ i0 fhe arder under fhe Code ‘ic prevem‘ abuse of process of fhe Cour"? and To oiherwise secure The ends of Jusiice. Inheren‘i’ jurisdiction or exira ordinary gurisdiciion under Sec’rio'n 482 of “die Cr.P.C. shouid be exercised sparingiy, in raresi’ of rare cases. In 'i‘ioe insi‘ani' case, i? is no? rhe case of fhe appiican? ”rhaf if ‘i‘he em‘ire aliegaiions made against ‘ni‘m in The compiaim‘ and iioe documeni's are faker: ‘io be irue: even ‘ihen conviciion @ - raguirmi +0 give hEs evidense é‘ha? wwid no? be rpossibk‘ by? 1%:3 applican? is ye”! fhe cheque was sfoien or missad or: misused by fhe mnwaypiieam‘. 3. ’Fnerefore, af *rhis STage, I cit: no“? finé any ground $91” exercésing ordmary inharan‘i- jur§3dickian under Sec'h'on devoid cf merit same is Heb} ‘rlhe axfm 482 of ?§7e Cr.P.C. ‘Fne pefifiora is e f0 ée dismissed and if is axordingiy, 6ismissad‘, m liming. 9. Consequem‘lyJ IANc’l/ZOGS sfaads éisposed of. sdb if‘ T. P. Sham? " ‘ > Judge :g 1" Sumo