S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.305/2010 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samit Vs. M/s Chand Mal Kailash Chand Dated : 27.05.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Choudhary, PP for the State. *** By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 24th June, 2003 rendered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dudu, District Jaipur whereby he closed the evidence of the complainant. 2. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order dated 24th June, 2003, it is noticed that one complaint came be filed on 7th March, 2001 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dudu against the accused respondent. The court gave ample opportunity to examine the complainant as also the witnesses in support of the complaint but he did not produce the witnesses till 4th April, 2003. On 4th April, 2003, the complainant was afforded last opportunity to produce himself and other witnesses for their examination. On the date so fixed by the Court, neither the complainant appeared nor his counsel appeared in the Court. -2- Resultantly, the learned Judicial Magistrate closed the evidence. It is shocking that no efficacious legal remedy available to the complainant was availed. Thereafter, on 17th February, 2004, none appeared and the complaint was dismissed in default. Having scrabbled the order- sheet, the complainant appeared with the application that he should have been afforded one last opportunity to examine the complainant. This application came to be decided on 11th December, 2009 by the learned trial Court observing that the court was not competent to recall or review its own order and the application was accordingly dismissed. 3. Now the petitioner has implored to set aside the order dated 24th June, 2003 and invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of cases that the powers under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and care and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. When the evidence was closed on 24th June, 2003 by the learned trial Court, there was remedy available to the complainant to file a revision before the Court of Sessions, but the petitioner is not found to have availed that opportunity and after a lapse of seven years, he has filed this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent -3- jurisdiction of this Court. It is very relevant to record that the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only when there appears to be an abuse of the process of Court. The Court is required to prevent that abuse and pass an order to meet the ends of justice. Filing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., after lapse of seven years, suggests the indifferent attitude of the petitioner to prosecute the accused in the Court of law. It can be termed to be a tangible abuse of the process of Court by the petitioner. The petition is totally devoid of substance, hence, it deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg