HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PBTITIONERS CRIMINAL M.P.No. 592 OF 2010 1. RE^PONDBNDS 2. 3. 4. VERSUS 1. 2. Jawahar Lal Chetyanl, S/o Late Kishanchand Cheryanl, Aged about 45 yeara, R/o Gali No. 4, Telibandfaa, Ralpur (C.O.), Naveen Cheryani, S/o Late Kishanchand Cheryaai, Ay,ed about 42 years, R/o GaU No. 2, TeUbandha, Raipur(C.G.), Gurupal Siagh @ Gudu, S/o Shri Dharmpal Singh, ^ed about 36 years, R/o 69, Anaad N^ar, Raipiu- Jairam Das, S/o Shri Nanakram, Aged about 40 yeara, R/o GaU No. 4, Sindhi Colony, Teh, & Distt. Raipur (C.G.). State of Chliattisgarh, Through- P.S. Telibandha, Raipur(C.G.). Amarjeet Siagh Saluja, S/o Late Labh Siagh, Agcd about 60 ycars, R/o GaU No, 2, Telibaadha, Raipur PETmON UNDBR SBCTION 482 OF THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenfc- Shri Maaish Sharma, Advocate for the petttioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. O.A. forthe State/respondent No. 1. Shri S. Imtiaz Ali. Advocate for the respondent No, 2. ORAL-ORDE» (Passedon 12/01/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'} for quashment of fhe order dated 28/6/2010 passed by Judicial M^istrate First Class, Raipur in unregistered coniplaint case (Amarjeet Sin.gh Saluja v. Jawahar Lal Cheryani & Ors.) whereby leamed Judicial Magistrate Pn-st Class, Raipur has directed fhe PoU.cc to register Firstlnforiaation ^€3S.. '/y^ ~\ S7 fe^ 9 ^ss-ss',. i 8 '•OE-i®',•? v^&y ''^?H^©^-"-'' i<$ Report ia tcnns of Section 156(3) of the Code on thc basis of coniplaint made by respoiident No, 2 agauast fhe petitioners. As per copy of the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners, on 9/2/2009 first complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, which was sent to fhe PoUce Authorily iinder Section 156(3) of the Code. Bcfore receivu^ such complaint fiom the Court on ftie basis of report naade by respondent No. 2, First Information Report iu crime No. 313/08 was registered by PoUce Station Telibaadha and same was invest^ated aad final report was filed before the Magistrate concemed. Considermg the naked final report, xespondent No. 2 has decided to proceed with coinplaint under Chapter XV of fhe Code and case was fixed for exaniination of fhe complamaat aad its wituesscs thereafter, on 20/11/2009 respondent No. 2 Isas decided not proceed with fhe complaint and finaUy coiuplaiut Taaa disinlssed thereafter sam.e copy of coinplaint was again filed before tfae trial Court on 11/3/2010 by oiily changiag fhe date of preseatation of the coiuplaiat Ayain., same was sent to fhe Police Station TeUbandha imder Section 156(3) of the Code. Police Station TeUbandha submitted its report fhat earlier crime No. 313/08 has beeu registered and in absence of evidence, they have submitted final report. After considering such Teport, Court below has agaia directed for registration of First Information Report on the basis of present complaint by refymg Lallaa Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Osa. reported in 2007 (1) MPHT 8 (SC) in which Supreme Court has held fhat ia case complaint discloses fhe cognizable -;---*!.: %:S<6-ut:», ""•••-••^.^w'\ '^ ofFeuce, PoUcc OfBcer is bozind to register the Pirst Information Report aad inquire fhe luatter. Shri Manlsh Sharma, teamed counsel for fhe peUtfoners, Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for flie State/respondent No. 1 8s Shri S. Iiutiaz Ali, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 are heard. Learaed counsel for the petitioners submits that Police Officer registered fhc First Information Report and has submitted fiaal report. Present respondent No. 2 has ffled earlier coiuplaint aud on fhe basis offinal report, coiuplainant has decided to pioceed under Chapter XV of fhe Code but instead of proceedu^i under Chaptra- XV of the Code after somc tiine, he has informed the Court that he does not waat to prosecute fhe coanplaiat but fhereafter, ^aia he baa fited second complaint and trial Court }ias directed for Tegistration of First Itifonnation Report on ftie basis of second complaiat oxily on the groiuid fhat Police has not registered First Irtformation Report on the basis ofpresent coniplamt ie. second conipUaut Learaed counsel for fhe respondent No. 2 submits that first coxaplamt has not been. decidcd on incrits therefore, complaiaant is competent to file second coinplaint. Scope of Section 482 of fhe Code is very Huuted. In all cases of iUegality or u-regularity, High. Court is not required to exerctec its uiherent jurisdiction. It should be used spanngty iu aa exceptioxial circumstaaces, whfle dealmg wifh exercise of power under Sectlon 482 of fhe Code m the matter of M/s. Zandu PhanaaceuUcal Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and otliers reported iu AIR 2008 SC 9 the Supreme Court has held fhus:- Vt^:_ *8. Exercise of power under SecUon 482 of ftie Code in a case of fhis nature is fhe exception and not fhe rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on fhe High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of tfae Code. It envlsages fhree circumstances under which the mherent jiulsdiction 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 ofheiwise secure fhe ends ofjusdce. It is neither possible nor desh-able to lay down any inflexible rule which would govem the exerelse of inherent jurisdictton. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for aM cases fhat may possibly ariae. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart fi-om express provisions of law which are necessaiy for proper discharge of funcUons and duties imposed upon tfaem by law. That Is tbe doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the Hi^l Coiuts. AU courts, whether civil or crimihal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in thetr constitution, all such powers as are necessaiy to do fhe rigbt and tp undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on tbe principle "guando iea: aUqtdd aiioui oonoedtt, conoedere videtLir et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potesf (when the law gives a person anyfhing it gives him that without which it cannpt exist). Whffle exerclsing powers under the section, the court does not functton as a coiirt of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section ftiough wide has to be exereised sparingly, careftrily and with caution and onfy when such exercise is justiiied by the tests specificaBy laid down in ttie section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito jusW.ae to do real and substanfial justice ft>r the administration of which alone courts exlst Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any atteinpt is made to abuse that authority so as to produee injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of prooess of the court to altow any actfon whfch would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justifled to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of tfae process of court or quashing of tbese proceedlngs would otherwise serve the ends ofjusUce. When no ofience is disctosed by the complaint, fhe court may examine tfae question of fact When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permlssible 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." 8. As per documen.ts aad order uupugned, at the instance of respondeats PoUce Authorily has registered First Iiifonnation Report ia crime No. 313/08 and submitted report to fhe Mte^istrate ui first complamt fhereafiter, first complaint was disinissed on fh.e ground fhat coinplainant does not waat to prosecute the comptomt fhereafter, again, conaplainant has filed second couaplaint in which complainant lajas not naentioned a&yfhing that ttus is second coinplaint aad first complamt has been dismissed as not pressed in the previous Sacts tor registeation of offence aud invest^ation, Afiter issuaace of direction for registration of Pirst Inforaaation Rcport, PoUce has subimtted its detatt report iclating to iavcsti^tlon and registration of Pirst Information Report relating to same ofiFence but trial Court has directed to Police Authority for registtation of First In&rmation Report only on fhe grouad fhat previous First Information Report has not been registered on fhe basis of present coniplaiat. 9. VirtuaUy, Police OfiBcers are not required to rcgister First Irtfortiaation Report on fhe basis of prevfous or subsequent complaint but are requn-ed to register fhe First Information Report on fhe basis of offence conunitted when Police has registered Fust Information Report on fhe basis of report made to it for connnussion of ofifence fhen Court is not competent to direct for registration of sccond First Information Report on the basis of same ofiFencc or PoUce is not competent to register the second First Infonnation Report on fhe basis of same offence. This is complete abuse of process of fhc Court. Consequentty, petition is aUowcd and fhe order impugaed dated 28/6/2010 (wrongty written as 26/8/2010) p^sed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ralpur is hereby quashed. First Iiifonnation Report registered on the basis of aforesaid directton is also hereby quashed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge u-