PBTITIONBB.S 1. 2. VERSUS Sukhi Rain Sahu S/o Late Sbri KIietam Sahu ased about 61 years. Sm.t. Brijbai w/o Shri Sukhiraiu Saliii aged about 60 ye3js. Bofh resicient ot Bastipara, Viilage Khudmudi P.S. Newai'a Tahsil Tilda Dist-Raipur (C.G.). State of Chbatisgarh Through Collecto] Raipur. Present; Shri P.M. Pandey, Advocat®with Ms. DipaB panday, Aivocate fcr the appiicante. Shri Vinod Tekam, P.L- for the State/respondent. 1, Heard on S.A. No. 02/2008, application for taking additionai documents on record. Appiication (I..A. No. 02/2008,} is allowed. Additiona! documents taken on record. 2. This petition is. dlrected against ths order dated 4/3/2008 passed by 10 Additiona! Session Judge, Raipur in crimina! revislon No. 41/08 affirming the order dated 11/2/2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, "iida ;n criminai Case No. 29/08 whereby Judiciai Ms.gistrate First Ciass. has framed the chargis for the offence punishable undsr Sectjons 498/34, 323 of I.P.C. 3, Order is chailenged on the ground that trial Court has committed iilegality by framing charge wit'nou': any materia! and continuance of such proceeding without any materiai wouid amount to abuse of orocess of the Court. ..^:^w:i-t, lfl"li. ^"':, ^ ',-^1 4. Order is supported on behalf ofthe respondent. 5. it is argued on behaif of the petitioner that the daughter in !aw of th.e petitionere, Smt. Bhuneshwari Sahu is having inimical terms with the pstitioners previously. She had reported the matter against the petitione's but fina!iy petitioners are acquitted of the charges then she had subsequentiy lodged the First information Repoi-t with a view to 'harass ths petitioners. Prosecution has not coilected sufficient matei'ia! against the petitioner for framing of the charge. 6. Reliance in the matter of State of Madhva Pradesh Vg. Rlkhiram s/o Kashaiya Patej . reporfed in 1993 M.P.LJ. in which it has he'd that relative of the husband not residing 1n the same vicinity, not ctose retative and aliegation against them are vague then no prima-facie case of Section 498-A. is made out. Petitioners 'nave further p!aced reliance in the matter of Onkar Nath NSishra & Ors. y. Stata (NCT of ^_^3j^_reported in 2008 SAR fCriminaii 143 SC in w'hich it 7, has heid that in the abssnce of any crueity, the charges unaer Ssction 488-A of the I.PC is not sustainabte. Petitioners have further p'iaced reiiance in the matter of Y.S, ChenjDr.) vs. Batylbal D/o Abdu! Hussaln reported in 1993 M.P.L.J. in v/hich it has heid that Court is required to apply his mind retating to prima-facie case. This is a petition for quashment of the charge in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short 'the Code'), the scope of interference in exercsse of inherent jurisdiction under Sectlon 482 of the Code is very limited and it may be exercised in exceptionai 1993M.P.LJ 2008 SAR (Crimina!) 143 SC 1993M.P.L.J • ..<"^ .«•' ,1 3 <1 \ > ^ circumstances in case of State of Puniab vs. Kasturi Lal reported in 2004 Cr.LJ. 38S6 (38881 iSC), Apex Court obsewed that- "Exereise of power under S. 482 of the Code is a case ot' this nature is the exception and not the ruie. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. it envisages thrse cireumstances under which the inherent jurisdictien may be exercised, nameiy (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice. It is neither possibie nor ciesirabie to lay down any inflexibie ruie which wouid govern the sxercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment deaiing with procedure can provide for ail cases thst may possibie arise, Courts therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of iaw which sre necessary for proper o'ischarge of functions and a'uties imposed upon them by iaw. That is the doctrine which finds sxpression in ths section which merely recognizes and preseives inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civii or crimina! possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, ail such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. While exercising powers under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingiy, carefuliy and with caution and oniy when such exercise is justified by the tests specificaiiy laid down in the section itseif; It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substant'ai just'ee for the administration of which alone Courts exist". in the light of above legal proposition, I examined the contention of the parties, Copy of the charge-sheet reveals that Smt. Bhuneshwari Sahu daughter in iaw of the petitioners were subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, who are mother in law and father in !aw, close relatives of the husbandof Bhuneshwari Sahu. They are res'ding in same vicinity. Triai Court after applying his mind and taking into consideration the material available on record has framed the charges aforementsoned, at the stage of framing charge meticuious scrutiny of the evidence is not required as held by the Apex Court in case of Medchl Chemicals __2u04 Cr.L.J. 386o (3868) (SC) .-»"'"~8,. 'y ,•,' si i<. ^ /.,[,. (•"^ Pharma Pvt. Ltd. V. !'olQgical E. Ltd ., reporied in A!R 'OOO-SC 1869, the alisgation of the FIR report is to be assumed to be true unless the aliegations are absurd or inherentiy improbable to such an extent that no person can ever believe such a thing to have 9. The material coliected by the prosecution against the applicant as prima facie sufficient for framing of the charge. Tria! Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 10. The petition is being devoid of merits, it is tiable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. 11. I.A. No. 01/2008, application for interim relief/stay stands disposed of. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge f^ 2A1B_2QQQSC1869.