HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Cr. M.P.No. 603 of 2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble WIr. T.P. Sharma,Judge PETITIONER : Prakash Kochar RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh ORDER POST FOR 11-3-2008 Sd/- T.P, Sharma Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Cr.NI.P. No. 603 of 2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma,Judge PETITIONER RESPONDENT Prakash Kochar, S/o Shri Dharam Chand Kochar, Aged about 27 years, resident of Kochar Niwas, Plot No. 242, T.P. Nagar, Korba, PS & Tehsil Korba, District Korba, (CG). (In the impugned order the name of the applicant's father has wrongly been shown as Dharam Das Kochar). Versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Kotwali Korba, District Korba (CG). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Present: Shri P. Diwakar learned Sr. counsel with Shri Ashish Surana for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the respondent/State. ORDER (Passed on ..!.?.. March, 2008) This petition is filed for quashment of the Criminal Case No. 1100/2007 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC read with Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Act"). I 1^ s;-3?^' -^- 2. The proceedings before the trial Court are challenged on the ground that even at the face value of the documents/ charge sheet filed against the petitioner no case under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC read with section 3 (i) (x) of the Act, is made out against him. 3. Counsel for the parties are heard and the documents on record are perused. 4. According totheorderofthe ChiefJudicial Magistrate, it appears that the case is pending before it and the same is required to be committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the entire charge sheet is admitted at its face value then no case against the applicant is made out. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the complainant has been cheated by another accused and nothing has been said against the present petitioner therefore, continuance of the proceedings before the trial Court would only amount to abuse of process of the Court. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions. It is further submitted that the power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and it is not a fit case in which inherent powers under sections 482 of the Code should be exercised. s- 7. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Didigam Bikshapathi and another Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7411 in which it has held as under: "Inherent powers - Courts have all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo wrong in course of administration of justice on principle that when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist." 8. In the matter of Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474 the Apex Court has held as under: ("It is well-established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage ofjustice is done. The content and scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra and it was held as under: (SCC p. 555, para 8) The following principles may be stated in relation to the exerc/se of the inherent power of the High Court: (1) that the power is not to be resorted to ifthere is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance ofthe aggrieved party; (2) that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice; (3) that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision ofthe Code. y ^. In State V. Navjot Sandhu after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under: (SCC p. 657, para 29) "29.....The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for secuhng the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out hereinabove fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the ghevance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Chminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment" Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarhage of justice is cfone, the High Court entertained the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 /PC enured to their benefit even after the offence has been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused did ,.;K?t' not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. The dockets of the High Court are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed pmcedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscam'age ofjustice.") 10. In the instant case, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner along with another accused. Case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions. Court has not heard the parties as is required under sections 222, 228, 239 and 240 of the Code, on framing of charge. The petitioners have alternative remedy to get the matter adjudicated in the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge. Thus 1 do not find any ground for interference at this stage. 11. Consequently, the petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. J Sd,/- T.P, Sharma Judge