Hon'ble Single Judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings alleging cheating. The court held that the petitioner's actions were not an abuse of process and no extraordinary jurisdiction was warranted.
The petition for quashing is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SILASPUR
N
Petitioner Accused 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 482 of the Cr.P.C.)
(59: Han’bie Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) MLAneop Mazumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrsfauzia Mirza, cwnsei for the respondent.
Present:-
......-..-.--_.-
... .h.~—--.-...-.—_-
a...
0 L OR§ER (Passed on 7 January, 2011)
]
‘ far quashment of criminai pioc Magistrate, Jagdaipur in Compia
Propeny was sent to the the respondent. petitioner through three raiiway receipts and present petitioner has accepted delivery of one raiiway receipt and aiso propertysubmittedwithoutindemnity bend for other two raiiway receipts and obtained the paying any cost of the receipts to the respondent. property relating to twe raiiway Thereafter, ciaim petition before the Raiiway
on behalf of the responden t
“2,.
relating to tworaiiway receiptsby submitting indemnitybond beforethe raiiwaywithautanyauthority 0! authorizaticn of therespondent,evenhe hasnot paidcostoftheprep'eriyinveiveeintworailwayreceipts,thenthe civil suit.Thisshows fiie claim petitionand respondentwascompeiiedte has committed the offence of cheating and criminai that the petitioner misappropriation of the propertyandintentionofcheatingofthepetitioner was initsinception.Ontheaforesaidgtound,compiainthaebeeniiiedby therespondentbeforetheChiefJudicialMagistrate,Jagdaipur.
..‘ g,_
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 giveeffectto an order under the Code, (ii)to preventabuseofthe processof court, and (iii)tootherwisesecuretheendsof justice. tt is neither possiblenordesirabietolaydownanyinflexibieruiewhichwoutd 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 andto undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aiiquid alicui concedit, ooncedere videtur et id sine quoresipsaeessenon potesf' (whenthelaw givesa person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does notfunction as a court of appeal or revision. inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,carefuilyand with caution and oniy when such exerciseis justified by thetests specifically laid down in the sectionitseif. lt is to be exercised ex debito justifies to do real and substantial justice for the
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 powerto preventabuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and :justice. prevent promotion of in exercise of the powers court 'to wouid‘ be justified 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 servethe 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 thematerialsto assess what the compiainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out evenif the allegationsareacceptedintotoJ’
. ln the present case without any authority or propriety and without any paymentofcostofthe propertyrelatingtotworailwayreceipts the present petitionerhas received the propertyfrom railway by furnishing rndemntty bond shows his Intention since its inception and showsthatwrthintentto cheat the respondent the petitionerhasenteredintoagreementto purchase the property and has obtained possessionofthe propertywithout payment of cost of two railway receiptstotherespondent.
3;:
Bl-
. Consequently, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not abuse of processoftheCourt. i do not find any caseforinvoking extraordinary jurisdictionintermsofSection482oftheCr.P.C.The petition being without substanceis liabletobedismissedanditisherebydismissed at the motion stageitself.
‘ Sdl‘ ' T.P.Sharma: judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating is liable to be dismissed.
Whether the petitioner's actions in obtaining property without payment amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nils. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharafui Haque and othersReferred¶36
Nils. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharafui Haque and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Chan Singh
Shree Chand Lunia
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
