ItBiSiittitey' PBTiTIOMER oy AT c.R.aa.p. No. Kriday Tiwari S/o Shri Rajaraxa. Tjwari aged about 47 years Autiiorized OiBcer Cent Bank Hcuie Finance Liinited Silaspur R/o Radhe Shyaiii Apartiiient Flat No. 301 Sharda Nagar Bilaspur Tah. And Distt. Bilasi^ur, VERSUS State of ChhattiSgsrh. Thana In-charge Schedul'e Caste/Schedule Tribe, WeMare Bilasnur Talt. snd Dist Biiasuur. 482 OF OF si-ion'&ie tiir. T.l-'.saa.rma.: T l Prps^r-t.' chri &ns"Tl c;h; •k'lp &ri\.TT:stp i^" "h^ ri^t't'irtr:^r O i •F'-." ^!-"^ t^*-14-"/*"~L^-->.-'."j-i^."- Ciilii V i! iUU I CP^Cii ! !, ~.L.. ii^l t.! IE; ^l.Ctl.^f i ^&^.'L/: .US;! tl (Fassed osa 04/07/SOOS} T"!S petition is di'ected for quashmen: o~ FiR m Cnr'e No. Q6;03 rsa:s"ered gt Soheduled Casts and Scheduiea Tnce Weltsre Po'ice Station. Sarkanaa. Bilascur. Ths oraer ;s chaliengea on rhe g'ouno that applicant has acted in accordance wrtn croyision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Flnanclsi Asssts 3"d En'forcemsnt of Security ^nte'est ACT, 2002 (in snort :the Arc;), but wiih a v;ew to rsstrai" ths eccusea from hs ;egai duty ':he comp'ainanT has ioaged tne faise report aga'nst the appiicant and continuance of sush cnm'na] proceeaing before ths Coiirt wouid amount to abuse of Drocess of law. 3. SrTi Anand Shuwa. Advocate for the appllcant and Shri Vinod Tekam. P.L. for th8 StStc hSSrd. Shn Ananc Snuk's, iearnsd counsel for the appiicant submrts that appiicant is a Autnorized Oficsr o' Cen~ Sanx home F:nance Limitea. BiiasDur and he has initlatsd tns proceeaing agalnst the compleinant and other persons in accordance with ths provision of ;he Act. h's action is protected under Sectlon 32 of the Act which envisaaes as unden- ..it.s.a'Wail,,; ,.7'.^^ "^ ^; f <J|g»:K<!»». I ""B:2% 1 - ^ ^ ii3"'^^ l'i^,;s:ii .siW E^i^ss^rs'tt''"'^'' "" 32. Protection of action taken in aood faith.- No suii. prosecution or other iegal proceedings sha!! iie against any secured cred'tor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of ths rights of the secured c'editor or bor'ower fbr anytnlng done or omitted to be done in aood faith under thls Act. 5. But complainant with a view to restrain the applicant from lega! proceeding iodgsd ralse rsport against the spplicant fcr the offence punlshable under Sections 294 of the and 3(1)(10) of ths Scheciuied Casste and-Scneduied Tribe (Prevention of Afrnr-itias ^r^^, -I Q^Q ,'-\L''•Ju;;.;CS& .'"'iui.^. i SU-S!. 6. Petition 's opposed on behaif of the iearned Counsel for the Stare. 7. This is a petrtion for quashment of the FIR in exercise of Inherent iurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ('n short 'the Code'), tne scops of interference in exerolse of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is verv limited and it may be exercised in exceotionai circumstancss in case. of Stats of Punjab vs. Kasturi La!l reportsd In 2004 Cr.L.iJ. 3866 (3868) tSO. Apex Court observea that:- "Exercise of pov/er under S. 482 of the Code is a case of this nature is the exception and not the ruie. The section does noi confer any new powers on the High Court, It only saves t'ne inherent po'-ver vi'hich the Court possessed before the enac.tment of the Code. !t envisages three circumstances under v<hich the inherent jurisdlction may be exercised, namel'y' (1) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and (ili) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice. it is neither posslbie nor desirable to lay down any inflexibie ruie which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No tegislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide fbr all cases that may possible arise, Courts therefore, have 'nherent po\,vers apart from express provisions of law which are necessa"y for proper dlscharge orfunctions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expressron in the section which merely recognizes and presen/es inherent pc""iers of the High Courts. Ail Courts, whether civil or criminai possess, !n ihe aissence of any express prov'sion; as inherent in their constitutlon, ali such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in courae of administration of justice. VVhiie exercising powers under the section tnough wide nas to be exereisea spannQiy, careruliy ana with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specificallv laid do\vn in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do rea! and substantial justioe for the administration ofwhich alone Courts exist". 8. In the light ofabove tsgai proposition, i examined the corrtentlons ofthe oart'es, Copy of the charge-sheet and documents filed on beha!f of the applicant, 'sveal thst '• 200.4 Cr.L.J. 3868 (3868) (SG) w—' '©" •:.';-^°^' -7 ^ :<?.^' :^^' ..,,-CTK1 FiR joagea by Rajendra Singh who is member of scheciuied Tribe reveals thai sopitcant reachec on 21/"'2008 at about 1".45 Tothesaid colonvwith some unsocial etemsnts in a vehicie and said that the Adivasis who reside here 'eet thsmseives ciever and thsy will be dispossessed by me. Apart from that the applicant also said as under- s'g4 'uffl^T'RI 'qrcft ~^Tt~a. ^T^ <rgf T^ qTa' sjif^dlrf] gTrt SjTq ait -SWn stfjraTi; T.Tqsirt A Wrt 'yS e)ITit ^t ^<t>—l?^>w'i'v 't'ER ^r? '^'TT oq' tf-js! ^' -3'Tpt'T.T, ^'tjtp 3T"?TqT Tif 3?^ qST "'Ticfl' ^t va •siNnt ^it »ft ^STre^n ^y-t s?T ^in aft j" 9. As held !n the case of Medchi Chemicais & Pharma Pvt Ltd. V. Wils Biotoaical E. Ltd'., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1SS9:- for the purposes of quashina the proceedinas in exercise of the Inherent powers under Section 482 of ths Coae dsiay or the truth or othewise of the a'iegations mads in the compisint, broadly speaKing, sannot be gone into. What is stated in the compiaint or the first information report is to be assumsd to fce true unless the aileaations are absured or inherently i-nprobabie to such an exient that nc person can ever beiisvs such a thing to have happened. In the instant cass, if the al'egation is assumed to be true then the ailegation is suffic'ent for warrant conviction against ths applicant. Consequently, the proceeding pending before the triai Court is not abuse ofthe Drocess ofthe Court. 10. The petition being devoid of merit it Is iiable to be dismisssd and hereby dismissed at ths stage of admission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge