$Mgi§¥ Ewm BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BuLASPUR (06.) CR.M.P. No. LI 7% /2oo7 Sofish Agrowcl, aged about 4O years, son of Shri Bojrang Lol Agrowai, aged about 42 years, Propriefor — Prateek Sales Associates, Light lndusTriaI Area, Near Korhari Damar Fac’rory, Harhkhoj, Bhilai, Disrf. Durg PETITIONER (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENT M/s. Rameshwaram Steel and Power PriVare Limited, through - Director, Radheshyam AgrawaL Office — 215, Deshbandhu Complex, Aamanaka, ‘ Raipur (C.G.) fhrough — General Power of Afforney Holder — Sashank Sesh, son of Sd‘radchad Sesh, Chief Accountant, r/o. Ramkund Raipur (C G l /, PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE cam: 1973 ‘x/ R HIQH CQURT OF GHHAmSéARH AT BILASPUR M,Cr,C.N9‘4?8 9f 2m)? Petitiaregr §afrish Agrawd, agad abom 4D years, son o1: 3hr! Bagrang Lai Agr‘awui, ageci abouf 42 yams, Propraefowi’rweak Saks Associates, Ligh? Indusn-ial Area, Neur- Ko‘rhuri Damar Facfory, Hafhkhoj, 3hiiai, DisfhDurg \C.&} Versus RE§PQNDENT M/s. Rcsmgshwamm Simei and Pawar' Privafe Limifed, fhrouqh - Direcfor. Rad‘nes'nyum Agrawai, Office - 2V5, Deshbandhu Complex, Aamnnaka’ Rqipur- (CEJ Through - Evenemi Pawer of A??omey HoMer - $ashank Sash, snn of Samdchand Sash, Chief Accoun-r‘anf. r/o. Ramkund Rainur (C.(§.) (Pe'rition under 5ec1'ian 482 of the Code of Criminal Proaedure‘ 1973) ($5: Hen'bk: Mr. T‘P. S,Mma. CE.) Presen‘r: $hri T.!<.Tiwa.r§t sounsal far +he, gefi‘fioner. Shré ERiSharma wh‘h Shri Vivek Chepm, caunsei for ‘rhe re$poncfemz Qrder (Deiiv‘ereé‘ on 3is" éugusxf, 206?} 1. The pe‘ri‘rioner has fiied This pafi-rinn undar 3gmion 4&2 91" The Cnde af Crimina! Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘fha Code’) far- quashmen? pf order- mking cagnizanae dm‘gd 228.2006 passed by m2 Judicia) z‘Aqgism'm Firsf Class; Raiqgun in Mi.c. Criminal Casa Nev12E-2/96 agains? ‘rhe pefiiinner. Same has baan chaiiengad bafare me 8*“ Addifiomi Sessions Jug‘ge (FTC), Raipur, in Criminai Ravision N0.11!Q?’. Laarnad 81+: Addi‘riami $zssians Judge: has dismissad The ravisien oniy on fine graimd Thu? ur-dzr impugnad is infgriocumr'y arder‘ and revision is barred under 5action 397(2) 9f fhe 2009 Cri.L.J.ZZ91 009 CriL‘JKMZ AIR 1978 SC 47 *2... Quashmenf is prayed an Thg ground Thu? wifhw? wars being any aliegm‘izm U3 0f service af notice: of demand upon The. pafifioner for ‘rhz affgnce punishable under Section 138 of ‘I'he Nego-tiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short ‘fhe Act. 1881‘). fhe Trial Cauri’ has regismred The comghin'r and has mken cagnizance and has i5$ued pmcegs (gains? ‘rha pefi‘rimer and same, has been confirmed in revision. Both #ha Courts baiow have csmmi‘rted iHegaHw and cantinug of praceeding on “the basis 0f such comphin‘t wank! be abusa of precass of #he. Caur'r. . I haw, heard immed munsei for The parties and parusaci “the order impugnad and ofher dgcumenfs fiigd on behalf cf fhe gaTiTianer. Learned counsel far The peTi-rioner vehemently argued Tha‘r in case 0f ccmpkrim far ‘the offence punishab!a Linda." 5gcfigns HR of fhe. Act 133,1. The camplamcm‘r is requirad f0 maka gufficiznf anagarrigm mquirzd undar 5?.ction 138 of '§'he Act, 1381, bu? ‘rhz prasanf complainan? has only alleged thm’ nm'ice n’r éemand damd 27.5.2006 has bean issued “m ‘I‘he paf$+ioner bu? has no? waged in hi5 camplam? fina‘r when noi’ice was semlad upcn The gafi‘rianer, Learned counsai further argued fhm‘ in The absence af suah diega‘rim, camplnirzt in presem farm is nu? mainminabh and promeding on the basis sf $uch camplaint woutd be. abuse 9f prscess 0f The CouM. ‘31 Learned counsa! ,pigcec! reliemce in fhe matter of $ung<zy $h¢m¢ar§ em. v. Saw cf Ra‘iamhaa‘ in which 'fhz High Cour? Gf Eajasfhan has‘hald 1413f order mking cogn?zance is no? inferlacu‘mr-y bu‘r firm? ordar- and rzviSian agains? <urh ardar is maintainabEe. Learned caunsel furfher placed reliancz in Tha maffer of Rejaev Kumar v. 5mm of U.P. & 0&3 in which The High Court of Mluhabcxd has hald Thu? arder Taking cognizance can he chalkngad in criminal revision gr under 5ec1ion 482 of The Cudeh Learnad coun§ai also placed reiianca in The mafiszr cf Madhu Limaye ¥. 5mm a! Aishamxhh'a 8 in which Th2 Apex Cour-1' has held fhaf powers under SecTion 482 of fhe Cog may be gxercised cansidgring ihe- foiiewing 3 resfricticms namiyi " ’ 2 provisivn in fhe (fade for fhe aggrieved pari‘y; , {aw (3) engmffed Thaw i? should. in any no‘r o'rher- ba exerdsed provision as of against fhe Code. fhe express bar 0f constimfe “zkhe offenca punishable under 5ecf§on 138 of the} Act, 1831. In gams~8, 9 and 11, T‘ha raspondant has madg “Ingcific allegai'inn fhm‘ mmce has been issued and has been served upon The pe‘ri‘rioner, bu? he has no? eamphin‘t pendirrg before The Cour? of Judicia! Magis‘rm‘re Fir-5'? Chsg Reipur. Power under 5ec'rion 482 of “me Code is exceptional in namre and should be used sparingly. While dealing wifh exercise of gmwer under Section 482 of 1he, Code in The maiter of Misk Zendu Phameseutém! Caur'f Works has md. held cud thus, other: v. Md. $haraful Haque and wharf #le ,Apex of “g: fhis Exercise na’i'ure is of The gower excepfion under Section and no‘r 482 "rhe of ruie, the Code Tile in Secfion a case does noi' confer (my new pcwers or' 1"he High Cour‘f. Ii oniy‘sav‘és the inheren’r power whieh The CnuM possessed before +he e. If envisages ihree ciFcumsi‘ances under? give effect To rm order under The Code (ii) 1'0 prevem‘ abuse uf 'ihe process or couri‘r, and (iii) To other-wise secure ‘rhe ends of jusiioe. if us neifher- possiisie not? oesimbie i0 iay doWn any“ infiexibie rule which would govern The exercise of inherent have inheren'l power-s opor? from exnress grovisions of inw which are necessa"Y for proper . . discharge o 01‘: funcfions anci duties imposed upon ihem by iaw. Thai is: iiie docir’ine whici‘i finds expression in The seciion which mereiy recognizes and preserves inheren‘r powers of fhe High Couris. Aii counts, whe‘l‘her civii or provide Jurisdicfion. for aii No cases iegisiafive Thai“ may enacirnen‘r possibiy dealing arise. wifh {Jour‘i‘s procedure i’i‘lei‘efore, can , This is o pew‘ifion under Section 482 of ‘i'he fictde for ouoshmen? of criminoi criminaf passess, in fhe. ab£ence of any axpress provisian, as inherenf in ‘rheir consfifufion, aii such powers ds are necassdr'v *o do *i'he righ‘i‘ and ”r0 undo a wrong in course of adminish’a'i‘ion of uiustica on tho princigle "guando lax: aliguid alicui caneedii cancea’ere w’a’eiur er’ id’ sine qua res (asae esse no» pofesf‘ {whe , "me km gives a person anyf’ning i? gives him frhai wi‘ihoui which i cannot axis?) Whiig exercising power-s Linda!“ iha sec'rion, the couM does no? function as a cour'i of apneoi or revisio .Lnnclélu JuF'ISJIC‘hafi Ui’luai‘ 1+2 aac’ion mUugh WidE ha; TG 9E ”(gr-need <pav~molv core-Folk! and wd‘h mutton and onlv whan such exerase is iushfied by ihe ‘tesi's sneCificaiy laid down In We seciion ii'sen‘. I Is To De exerciser: ex deoim jusnfwe is do real and substantia! uiusfice for the administm‘i'ion of which alon courfs exist Au'ihor-Hy oi: ihe cour+ exisfs for advancemeni o Jus’rice and if any a’riempi is made io abusie Thai auihoriiy so as f0 produce mu shcp We mur'r new powar' fo prawn? abmau 3“ wouid be an abuse of process of ihe coum‘ To aiiow any aciion whim wouia resui m musiice and prevem‘ promo'hon of jusiice. In exorcise of the powars court would be justified to quash m proceeding ii: i‘i‘ finds tho? ini-i'ia’rion/coniinuanw of i'i omouni's i0 abusm of iha procass of coum‘ or quoshing of ihese proceeding wouid oiherwige serve. The: ands of jusiica. When no offal/roe i oisciosed by ‘rhe compinin‘i, 1he cour’r may examine ‘i’he quesfion of faci. When a campioinr‘ is sough'i io be quasiieci, ii' i permissible. To look info ‘rhe moferiois To ossoss who? th comoiainom has aiieged and whefher- any offence is made ouT even if fhe aiiega'rions are accep‘ied in ioio." 8. While dealing with 'rhe question of necessity of making specific oliegaiion in case of comoioin‘!’ under 5ec‘iion 138 of fine Act, 1831, the Aoex Cour‘r in the mower of 5M5 Phormoceutioois Ltd. v, Neem Bhoiio on anotherts has heid ihm‘ The .umpiamonf .5 requwed io rm e necesso ailega‘tion The? a? ihe Time of commission of theioffence the accusediwus in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the comgon. 9. While dealing with the some question, the Aoex (iourt in the matter of sobithe Rsmamurthy 5i Ann v. R35. £i¢nnebosavordhyo6 has held that the complainant is required to make avermen‘i’ in the comploint that ai Direetors of the Company were r-esgonsible for- cleomnoe of the'liabiiity. 05 SCC (Cm) 1975 06 (4) Crimes 67 (56) n n i e f ? y s s i e e r'y y l RH ‘— g, 10.This is a Fefifion under $ectian 482 of the Cada mud aver! +ha Qréem no'r revisinbie in wrms 0f 5ec‘tion 397(2) of The (Jude can be quashad in exercisz of inherent jurisdicfion. 11. The comgzylainan‘t has made. specific: allegatians in paras-8, 9 and 11 which read as undam- “8. m: %, W $ Imam Um =? m 27,!95/2995 a?! q'xif‘mg’er mas V3! ai>3¥§aa q)? tn‘wr qmr Ha é'fw mi? $3? :gfa'a MtéimaiafiE§aMaa$mi¥mfwma§€a§ rum ”ti ama$za a? ire‘i '%, am: 63a ‘2'3aai: 1i“ aii‘f’d ‘a‘qyf Vifér air W WW m m a! ’ 9. a? féi, WI§ am 11m tirxmgw m wag a§ mt?! $ am'm mmgaa gm ul‘h‘reii‘ if)? aq'faf%d ihi‘ $1 @a‘ WW1 32.36.172/— r5 “ma“ i Triwrqa “amimf%1 I? mi? m min 11. 2:3 f%:? Him m W m 25/05/2995 as? W gm, m%ggamummah¥§a§wwwma§m @MEigma‘eEgmaantéWmwximma? m §Wm§a§a§WmTmm§§Hm ma€mmfemmwggwmmf€y$aiwhum $$Wm$ém mmma§m€: 12.Pa.m-9 specificaily revzals That after receiving nn‘riae. by The pe‘rifioner, he has failed 1'9 pay ‘rhe. amoum’ of cheques, *herefora, me campfninanT/raspondent has filad complain‘r beforg fhe Cour? wi‘thin prescribed fime. The wagmion made in 1kg complnin? sutigfiei: Tm ~ requirement 0f Sections .133 {$1 142 of The Ad, 1881. Even giherwise ibis is 'i 9 a quesiian 9f fee? ‘io be decided cm the basis of evidence. 13.The Trial Cour-1: has taken cognizance on 1'he Eesis of complaint supported by an affiriuvi? of the compieimm in irerms of $ecfion 145 cf the Aet, 1881A While Taking cognizance against 'Hne petitioner, learned Judicial Magistrate First €lass has not cammittecl any illegality. I clan not find any merit in this petition. IaflkConseauentlyi the netition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sdl— T. P. Sharma Judge Bl-