^ ;T4: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH^HQ BLESHRIT,P,SH^ CR.M. P.NO,5'72j?2QQ7 Uttamchaad aad Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ORDER Post for _{_/05/2008 Sd,/- T.RSharma Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. 572/2007 PBTITIONERS 1. 2. Versus RBSPONDENT Uttamchand, S/o. Raingopal Maheshwari, aged about 51 years, Proprietor Harsh Dal and Rice Mill, Benietara, Distt. Durg CG Mukesh Chandak, S/o. Girdharilal Chandak, aged about 38 years, Manager, Firni Girdharilal Chandak, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg CG State of Chhattisgarh, Through fbe Station House Officer, P.S. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) PETITtON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. :Hoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present; Shri V.C.Ottalwar, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri U.K.S.Chandel, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. ORDER (Passeei on_^_SSay 2008) 1. This petition is directed for quasbiaent of fhe FIR in Criine No. 244/2005 and filing of charge sheet for fhe offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 read with Section 34 of the IPC aad Section 3/7 offhe Essential Comiuodities Act, 1955. 2. The quashment is prayed on fhe ground fhat fhere is no iota of evidence sufEcient for prosecution against tlie petitioners for fhe offence aforeinentioned arid fhe registration of ci-iiae and filing of charge sheet woiild am.ount to abuse ofprocess offhe law. 3. Heard counsel for fh.e parties. 4. Copy ofthe charge sheet perused. 5. It is argued on behatf of the petitioners that a crirruiial case is registered and prosecution is launched on the ground fhat fhirty five quintals of rice was sold iu Jaiswal Agency, Nawagarh aad issued bill. Likewise, fhe petitioners had sold fiye qzuntals of the wheat to Jaiswal Agency and issued ftie bill. The petitioners are traders aad they used to seU the commodity. Thei^ is no nexus between fhe quaatity of rice aad wheat sold which are 35 quintals and five quiatals respectively wifh the comraodity seized. The rice aad wheat seized in connection wifh fhe crime are 45.20 quiatals aad 15 quiutals respectively. There is no ofher evidence against these Retiuoners. 6. It is also argued fhat there is no Biaterial on record to show that wifhout se11ing ftie coininodity, the petitioners had issued fhe bitls relating to alleged sale wifh a view to safeguard Vidyanaad Jaiswal who is fhe accused for fhe offence punishable as aforeinentioned. 7. Inherent power under Section 482 of fhe Cr.P.C. (iu short 'Code') has to be exercised sparingly wifh circum.spection. As held by the Apex Court iu Scunida Vs. lidshid (S), i?ashced and Others, 2008 1 SCC 474. it is weU established principle fhat ialierent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 of fhe Code has to be exercised sparmgly wifb. circumspection and in rare cases aiid fhat too, to correct patent illegalities orwhen some miscarriage ofjustice is done. The content and scope of power uiider Section 482 of tlie Code. were exammed ia considerable detail m Madhu Liaiaye Vs. State ofMaharastra (SCC P.555 para 8), aad it was held as under : The follovAng prindples nwy be stated in. relatton to the exercise ofthe inheresit ofthe Hvgh Courfc (Ij thcst the pewer is iwt to be there is a. specific provislon in. the Code for the redress of :?«"':>K. •/ Kia. 1^*^--.. ••-». l's.!,^-'.-y (2} thdt it should 6e exercisted very spcuingly to prevent ttbuse ofprocess ofcmy Covrt or otherunse to secure the ends of justice; (3) that it should not be exercised as afidinst the exyress bar of Icuo engrafter in emy other provlsion ofthe coSc. 8. In fhe instan.t case, only charge sheet has been filed. No charge has been framed, ao appUcation for his discharge has been filed by the petitioners before fhe trial Court. The petitioners are required to estabUsh that fhe aUeged receipt ofwheat and rice is genuine. This is not a case ia. which if the petitioners adinit the entire charge sheet fhen even the saoie is aot sufficient to warraat conviction a^aiast fheiu. s,'--.' 9. Consequenfly, no uiterference is called for under Section 482 offhe Code. The petitiou being devoid of uierits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disinissed. Sd,/- T.P, Shanna Judge,