HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 16/2011 Petitioner Rfispondents VERSUS 1. 2. Sunil Kumar Soni, S/o SIui Ram Pratap Soni, aged about 50 years, R/o Gondpara, Darri Mandir, near city Kotwali HaU, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Distict Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Offlcer, PbUce Station KotwaU, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri K.K. Maaik, S/o Shri Amrit Lal Maaik, s^ed about 50 ycars, C.S.E.B. Korba, Quarter No. C/40, S.T.P.P. Cotony, Korba(C.G-) PETTTION UNDER SBCTION 482 OF THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROaEDITRE, 1973. (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Preseat:- Shri K.K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 20/01/2011) By fhis petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cruninal I3rocedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code^ petitioner has prayed for quashiaent of First Information Report registered in crime No. 202/2006 by Police Station Kotwali, Bilaspur under Sections 420 & 34 of fhe Indjan Penal Code aad Sections 138 & 142 ofthe Negotiable Instruxuents Act, 1881. Quaslunent is prayed on tbe ground that without aay pruna facie materialagamst the present petitioner, PoUce has niade petitioner as accused even his naine does not find in the First Itifonnation Report. Shri K.K. Singh learaed coiuisel for fhe petitioner and Shri Simiit Jhanwar P.L. for the State/respondent No, 1 are heaid. Leamed counsel for fhe petitiouer submits that present petltioner himself has purchased plot fioin M/ s. Sepieutnet Net Teclinologies whose Board of Directors are separate persons and petitioner is not agent of said Coaipaay therefore, he is not Uabte for aay act of the Coiapauy. 5. On fhe ofher hand, leamed counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 opposed fhe petition and submits that Auaexure P-1 filed on behalfof the petitioner ckarly reveals that petitioner is agent of such Company aad has cheated so many persons along with ofher accuscd persons. 6. Scope ofSection 482 oftbe Code is veiy limited. In all cases ofillegalily or u-reguJarily High Coiu-t is not required to exercise its iahereiit jurisdiction. It should be used sparmgly ia aa exceptional circumstances, while deating with exercise of pcwer imder Section 482 of the Code ia fhe matter of M/s. Zaadn Phwmaceutical Works Ud. and otha-s v. Md. Sharafnl Haque aad others1 fhe Supreme Court has hcld thus:- "8. Exercise of pcwer under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nabire is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect 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 dcwn any inflexible rule which would govem the exercise ofinherent 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 necessaiy for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the 'AIR2005SC9 M3 ? 7, section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or cruninal 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 justice on the principle 'quando lex aligutd cdiaii conoedit, conoedere videtur et id sine quo res tpsae esse non. potesf (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 section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito jusWae to do rpal and substantial justice for the administration of which alone pourts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice 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 justified to quash any proceeding if it finds 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 oHence 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 offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.' NormaUy, First Information Report should not be quashed in exercise of extraordinary itiherent jurisdiction unless continuanee of such First Infonnation Report or crimiiial iavestigation wouU be abuse ofprocess. In fhe present case, written report clearly reveals the fact that present ^^SX&Q^ ff^ 1 K ^ y/ "x^'^'y L1 petitioner is agent of M/s. Sepientaet Nct Tcchaologies who has comnutted cheating wifh at kast 30 persons. Considering fhe aUegations niade in the said writteu report Auaexure P-1. I do not find aay case for exercising of extraordiaaiy uiherent jurisdiction for quashing of First Infoniiatiou Reporfc Consequently, petition is liable to be disnussed and is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 01 is also disuussed. Sd/-':"'1, T.P. Sharma Judge ^