_ @ww‘? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. 475 OF 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Lalita, wif6 of Domem Sahu, agcd about 45 years. Doman, son of Shau'uhan Sahu, aged about 50 years. 3. Ishwal‘, son of Shatruhan Sahu, aged about 45 years, All are Rio Village Karanjiya Navagaon, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg {C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT Dhamlaram, son of Dhanaram Sahu, aged about 35 years, Kastkar and Janswathya Rakshak, R/o Village Kamnjiya Navagaon, Police Station Bemetara, Distn'ct Durg (C,G.). . PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :I-ion’bie Mr. T.P.§harma, J.) Present:- Shri RP. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 24/ 11/ 2009) This petition has been Eled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in Short ‘the Code’) is for quashment of the order dated ’ 9 30/7/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in criminal revision No. 42/ 2008 affirming the order dated 22/7] O8 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara in complaint case NO. 824/ 08. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that Without any pn'ma facie material for taking cognizance court below has taken the cognizance and thereby committed an illegality. OD . During the course of argument learned counsel for the peh'tioner at the out set submits that at the time of taking cognizance, the court is Learned counsel for the parties are heard. required to consider the material available on record in its face value and not in its evidencary value and the material colleted on behalf of the complainant is sufficient for taking cognizance against the petitioners NO. 2 8:, 3 but is not sufficient for taking cognizance of the oEence against the petitioner NO. l. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that copy of the complaint and copy of the statement recorded under Sections 200 of the Code complainant/respondent reveals that petitioners No. 2 85 3 has committed some act but not by petitioner NO. 1 therefore, continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner NO. 1 would amount to abuse of the process of the Code. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition but frankly admits that specific allegation has been made against the petitioners NO. 2 8t. 3 in complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Code. 7. While deah‘ng with exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in the matter of Mls. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and othersl the Apex Court has held thus, “8'. 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 which the Court possessed before the enacnnent of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give eti‘ect 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 down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent 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 necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them 1 AIR 2005 SC 9 by law. That is the docirinc which Ems expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inhelent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as axe necessaxy to do the Iight and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando Iex aliquid alicm' ooneedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (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 specincally laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement ofjustice 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 comt would be justified to quash any proceeding if it hnds 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 oii'ence 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 oh‘ence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” At the time of taking cognizance the Court is required to consider the material collected on behalf of the complainant in its face value, no meticulous scrutiny or examination of the evidence in its evidenceary is required and if the allegation made in complaint is admitted in its face value by the accused persons would sudicient for conviction then the Court would be justified in taking cognizance against the accused persons. In the present case if the statement of the complainant and complaint is admitted by petitioner NO. 1 in its face value then no conviction to petitioner NO. 1 would be possible. he statement of Juneshwar Sahu T attached only corroborated value and is not a substantive piece of evidence therefore the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner No. 1 is not justined and such continuance would be abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed and criminal proceeding pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara in complaint case No. 824/08 against the peu'tioner NO. 1 Lalita wife of Doman Sahu is hereby quashed. Sdl— a Ji * T. P. Sharma Judge