é? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILA$PUR Cr; M.P. No. 5 11 Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd.3, Chhabra Mantions, Fur Road Bhilwada, Rajasthan (31 100 1) 2, Trilokw Chand Chhabara, Director, fashion suiting Pvt. L‘d. — 3 Chhabra Mentions Pur Roati, Bhilwada Rajasthan (3 1 100 1). APPLICANTS VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1 . Wahida Begum W/o Chixaguddin Age (Complainant) 32 years Rf o Near Acharmal Kirallashop, Ward No. 40, Kalabadi Durg RS. Durg City Kotwali Dishict Durg (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate Dist.— Omcer Durg. (C.G.). AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF W (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharm‘a, J.) RIMINAL PROCEDURE. rPresentz— Shri Shri Uttam Rakesh Pandey, Jha, Dy.G,A. Advocate for for the the State] petitioners/ respondent appBcants. No. 2. Respondent No. 1 not noticed. ,ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 10/01/2011) n 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1. By this petition umier Sectio 197 (in short ‘the Code’) against the order dated 29/ 11 by 9‘11 Additional Sessions Judge [20 10 passed 3 (are) Burg (co) in cn'mjnai revisionrNo. 140/2010 ajiixming the order dated 3/9] 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in criminal complaint case No, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has dismissed 24/ 2008 whereby the application for release on bail and furnishing bail bond by petitioner No. 2 through its attorney holder, Shri Uttam Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners and Shn' Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State} respondent No. 2 are heard. @ 3. Order impugned, order of trial COurt, copy of complaint; application for such bail, permanent exemption application under Section 317 read with Section 205 of the Code 8n cbpy of ledger peruSed. Present respondent No, 1 has filed complaint against the petitioners for the on‘ence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which after necessary inquiry trial Court has registered the aforesaid offence against the petitioners and process has been issued against the petitioners. Petitioner No. .2 has filed an application for permanent exemption under Section 317 read with Section 205 of the Code on 4/3/20 10. Petitioner has also nied an application for his release under Section 436 of the Cody in which he has mentioned that he be released on bail without his appearance by furnishing bonds through his attorney holder. On the date of hearing, petitioner No. 2 was not representing through his counsel then Warrant has been issued by the Court below against himv Petitioner No. 2 has filed another application for his release on bail on 9/ 1112010 under same condition through his attorney holder. 1K 5. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial ‘ Court has dismissed the application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 in his absence and the condition shown in application, same was challenged before the revisional Court and revisional Court has also dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, identification of the petitioner No. 2 is not under dispute, he is residence of Rajasthan and Without any unnecessary expenses his personal presence before the Court would not be possible and Court is competent in under Sections 31.7 8r. 205 of the Code to exempt the j C” {2003) (SUPP. ackhnesj_1988{l) {2001) 21 OCR {$C ‘ ) (Cm 781 }- 452 4AIR 2005 SC 9 '@ 10. On the other hand, learnad Dy. GA. for the State/respondent No. 2 oppcsed the petition and submité that tn'al Court has not committed any illegality. Present petitioner No.12 was under obligation to make his representation through his representative rtjll decision of application filed under Sections 317 8i. 205 of the Code but reasons best known to the petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 2 has failed to cause his representation thereafter, Court has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner No. 2. 11. Scope of Section 482 of the Code is very limited. In all cases of illegality or irregularity High Court is not required to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. It should be used sparingly in an exceptional circumstances, while dealing With exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in the matter of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful Hague and others4 the. Supreme 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 enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction 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 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 by law. That ig the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Cotirts. ‘_A11 courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, allsuch powers as are necessary to do the right and‘to‘undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui ooncedit, ooncedere 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 specifically 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 of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. lt 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 woulds 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 complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible 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.” \ . 12. As held in case of Debasis Samantaray l . \ i \ (Supra) Court is competent to Code for permanent exemption pass an order under Section 205 of the @ necessaiy to invoke extraordinaiy inherent jun‘sdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Code. . 111‘ the present case, act of petitioner No. 2 is not bonaiide and petitioner No. 2 has not come with clean hand therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Consequently; §etitjon is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. "xx—*7 Sd/— Certified Copy as per rules. T.P. Sharma Judge ‘