HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 599 OF 2009 Petitioners 1. Rodney Thomas, S/o Thomas Joy Singh, aged 29 years, R/o Quanar no. 4/687, Devendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Disu‘ict Bilaspur (C,G.). 2. Jerald Thomas, S/o Shri Thomas Joy Singh, aged 32 yeaxs, R/o Qualter No. D-4, Vishal Nagar, Chhattisgarh Tourism, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Tomas Joy Singh, aged 64 years, S/o Late Shn' KR. Singh, 4. Smt. Meena Singh, aged 55 years, W/o Shn' Thomas Joy Singh, (SI. No. 4 and 5 R/o Quarter No. 4/687, Devendra Nagar Bilaspur (CG). Velsus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House O$cer, Mahila Thana, Bilaspur. 2. Smt Vimmi Singh, W/o Rodney Thomas, D/o RM. Daniel, R/o Shailendra Nagar, Beind Nursing Hospital Raipur. PETITION UNDER sEc'rIoN 482 OF THE CODE OF cRnvnNAL pROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.$harma, J.) Present:— Shri N.L. Soni, Advocate for the petitioners Shri Ashish Gupta, P.L. for the State/respondent NO. 1. ORAlr ORDER (Passed on 20/ 1 1 I2009) 1. Heard on LA. No. 02, applicau'on for taking documents on record. On due consideration the application (LA. No. O2) is allowed. Documents am taken on record. 2. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code') is for quashment of the criminal proceeding as crime No. 14/09 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that without any pn'ma facie material su$cient for taking cognizance Court below has taken cognizance and thereby committed an illegality and continuance of such criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Comt. Brief facts necessaxy for disposal of this petition are according to the copy of the charge sheet and other documents tiled on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 married with Vimmi Singh she stayed with petitioner No. 1 for few days and went to her parental house. She executed an agreement on 13/ 10/08 in which she agreed that they will live separately and they divorce each other. She will not claim any maintenance but when the petitioners filed petition for divorce then she lodged the report in which she has mentioned that petitioner has obtained signature over alleged agreement under threat. She has not executed any agreement voluntarily, in First Informau'on Report she has stated that petitioner and their relatives used to commit cruelty and torture upon her. Shri N.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Asln'sh Gupta, P.L. for the State are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that respondent NO. 2 stayed only 3 days after her marriage with petitioner NO. 1 and she left his house, she fmally executed an agreement but after receiving the notice of divorce petition she has lodged the First Information Report which shows that petitioner have never committed cruelty, torture upon her and she has falsely lodged the report to save herself from decree of divorce and with a View to harass the petitioners. 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/State opposed the petition and supported the prosecution of the petitioners. 7. While dealing with exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in the matter of M/s. _Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Shaxaful Haque and othersl the Apex Court has held thus, “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this natuxe is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powem on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Conn possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give en‘eet to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inilem'ble rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of iimcu'ons and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which hnds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of jusu’ce on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui oonoedit, concedere videtur et id sine qua res ipsae esse non potest' (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the sech'on though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caun'on and only when such exercise is justined by the tests specincally laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement ofjustice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justined to quash any proceeding if it nnds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no ‘ \ \ 1 AIR 2005 sc 9 x t1 w 0 611¢€ is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and Whether any oEence is made out even if the allegations axe accepted in toto.” At the 11'me of taking cognizance the Coult is required to see the prima facie material sumcient for mking cognizance of'its face value whether the allegation made in the charge sheet is admitted in its face value then same would su$cient for conviction of the accused persons. The Court is not required to scrutinize the material in its evidencary value, at this stage it is dimcult to hold that agreement is genuine and executed voluntarily by the respondent No. 2 and respondent NO. 2 has lodged the report falsely. The allegation made in the First Information Report if admitted in its face value then it would be sumcient for conviction of the petitioners. On due consideration, l do not mid any ground and any exceptional case for invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Application for interim relief is also dismissed. T.P Sharma , ' Judge sw— 1P