HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SILASPUR MLAneop Mazumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrsfauzia Mirza, cwnsei for the respondent. ...~.~..-..-.--_.- ... .h.~—--.-...-.—_- a... 0 L OR§ER (Passed on 7 January, 2011) far quashment of criminai pioc ‘ Magistrate, Jagdaipur in Compi the respondent. through three raiiway receipts and Propeny was sent to the petitioner present petitioner has accepted delivery of one raiiway receipt and aiso submitted indemnity bend for other two raiiway receipts and obtained the receipts to the respondent. Thereafter, ciaim petition before the Raiiway ] property without paying any cost of the property relating to twe raiiway on behalf of the responden a t Petitioner Accused N Shri» $chan Singh, S/o. Sadhu aged about 65 years pattner Resgondeng Cemp!ainant Shree Chand Lunia, S/o Kumar Lum‘a aged about 4O Timber Merchant, partner Prakash and Co.,,Head Office Ward, Jagdaipur, District Basia: (C.G.) {Petition under Seciien Present:- 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (59: Han’bie Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) “2,. relating to two raiiway receipts by submitting indemnity bond before the raiiway withaut any authority 0! authorizaticn of the respondent, even he has not paid cost of the prep'eriy inveivee in two railway receipts, then the respondent was compeiied te fiie claim petition and civil suit. This shows that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating and criminai misappropriation of the property and intention of cheating of the petitioner was in its inception. On the aforesaid gtound, compiaint hae been iiied by the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdaipur. . i have heatd learned counsei for the parties, perused the petition and documents appended thereto. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is purely civil dispute not involving any criminal offence. The petitioner has purchased the property from the respondent, the respondent was required to send the property through railway to the petitioner, the petitioner was authorized to receive the property at Patiyala on the basie of three railway receipts, but instead of sending all three receipts, the present respondent has sent one indemnity bond for receiving the property relating to one railway receipt. The respondent has assured and authorized the petitioner to receive the property of two railway receipts. On the authorization of the respondent, the petitioner has received the property of two railway receipts and after receiving the notice of Railway Ciaims Tribunal and the respondent, he has paid the amount, therefore, dispute between the parties is pureiy civil in nature and the petitioner has not committed any oftence punishabie under Sections 420 and 466 of the l.P.C., therefore, continuance of any criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of the Court. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition» and submits that initially there was contract between the parties but the petitioner was not ready to pay the money and intention of cheating was in its inception. Without any authority, the petitioner has obtained possession of the property invoiving two railway. receipts and, even thereafter he has not paid any amount to the respondent. lt shows that with intent to cheat, the petitioner entered into agreement and has obtained possession of the property without paying any money. 0n the aforesaid basis, the'Chief Judicialllviagistrate, Jagdaipur has registered criminai complaint against the petitioner. 5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur. Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exceptional in nature and shouid be used sparingly. While dealing with exercise of power under $ection 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of Nils. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharafui Haque and others‘ the Supreme Court has held thus, “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case ofr this nature is the exception and not theruie. The Section dces not confer any new powers on the High Court. it oniy 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) tc 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. tt is neither possible nor desirabie to lay down any inflexibie ruie which woutd govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No iegisiative enactment deaiing with procedure can provide for at! 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 uponsthem bylaw. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which mereiy recognizes end preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. Aii courts, whether civil or criminal 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 aiiquid alicui concedit, ooncedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae 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, carefuily and with caution and oniy when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itseif. lt is to be exercised ex debito justifies to do real and substantial justice for the ..‘ g,_ rec} @ *4.‘_ administration of which aione courts exist. Authority of the court extsts for advancement of Justice and if any attempt ts made to abuse that authority so as to produce Imustlce the court nas 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 wouid‘ 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 offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a compiaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the compiainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in totoJ’ . ln the present case without any authority or propriety and without any payment of cost of the property relating to two railway receipts the present petitioner has received the property from railway by furnishing rndemntty bond shows his Intention since its inception and shows that wrth intent to cheat the respondent the petitioner has entered into agreement to purchase the property and has obtained possession of the property without payment of cost of two railway receipts to the respondent. . ln these circumstances, if the material collected on behalf of the complainant is admitted by the petitioner, then same would be sufficient for conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the l.P.C. . Consequently, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not abuse of process of the Court. i do not find any case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. ‘ T.P. Sharma: ' judge 3;: Sdl- ‘ Bl- ‘