HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 424/2008 Maharathi Baghel, S/o Dhana Ram Baghel, aged about 38 years R/o village Kharpari Para, Janjgir Thana Janjgir Distt. Janjgir (C.G.). NON-APPLICANT The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Janjgir Champa. APPLICANT VERSUS g APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) PROCEDURE. Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the applicant. Shri RR. Sinha, P.L. for the State/non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 12/09/2008) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 7/7/2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa in criminal Revision No. 37/08, affirming the order dated 21/4/2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Janjgir in criminal case No. 201/2007 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Janjgir has rejected the application filed by the applicant for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (l)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) g\ ‘24- against Police Officer who has made forgery in the , v bailable warrant issued '\_ ‘by the Court against the applicant. 2. Shri‘Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the applicant and Shri RR. Sinha, Advocate for the State are heard. 3. Order impugned perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is facing trial before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in criminal case No. 201/2007 in which bailable warrant was issued against him. Bailable warrant was not executed upon the \_ \ ' f applicant but Executing Officer forged the document of the execution of warrant which is punishable under law. Application under Section 190 (1) ( C) of the Code was filed before the trial Court for taking cognizance against such executing offlcer but same has been dismissed by the trial Court and order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge by the order impugned. It is also submitted that trial Court was under obligation info take cognizance but trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. 4. On the other hands, order is supported on behalf of the non- applicant. Copy of the order impugned, copy of the order of trial Court, m copy of the affidavit of Makunda and Saukhilal and copy of alleged bailable warrant perused. 5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is Very limited and it may be used in rarest of rear cases. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature 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 whichthe Court possessed before the enactment of the Code’ It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent ll jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to giveeffect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice. 6. Applicant has not filed any copy of the application which he had filed before the trial Court for taking cognizance of the offence. Applicant has also. not filed any affidavit-to controvert the execution of the alleged H i Mi) bailable warrant by him. He has not executed any bail bond. According to the case of applicant document of execution of bail bond has been forged in the name of Saukhilal and in the name of applicant. Saukhilal has denied the signature over the bail bond in his affldavit but applicant has not filed any document to this effect. It is alleged that said docUment has been forged by some police Officer. 7. In this case applicant has not filed any application under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code. Applicant has also not filed any Lomplaint or has not lodged any report for initiation of criminal proceeding. Alternate remedy is available to the applicant. This is not a case for invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the aboe, I.A. No. 01 /2008 stands dismissed. v Sdl- T. P. Sharma Juge ‘ g d ‘