CHELLAPPAN Vs. CHANDULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common respondent in these petitions filed a complaint, C. C. 65/ S/1978 in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 17th Court at mazgaon, Bombay against five accused for the offence under S. 420 read with s. 114, Indian Penal Code. Accused 5 is the petitioner in Crl. M. P. 1095, accused 2 and 3 are the petitioners in Crl. M. P. 1105 and accused 4 is the petitioner in Crl. M. P. 547. THEse accused are residents of this State and had been summoned to appear in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Bombay on October 10, 1978. Crl. M. P. Nos. 1095 and 1105 were thereupon filed in this Court under S. 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure ("code") and orders obtained on the accompanying petitions staying the case in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Bombay Accused 4 actually appeared in the Bombay Court and sought exemption from personal appearance. It is stated that a nonbailable warrant against him was issued by the Court (obviously owing to his non-appearance ). Following the other three accused he then filed Crl. M. P. 547. THE prayer in all the three petitions is to quash the complaint on the ground that it discloses no offence and that its continuance is an abuse of the process of the court which should be stopped in the interests of justice.

(2.) THE respondent was ex parte. As I felt strong doubts on the power of this Court to quash a complaint pending in a Bombay Court, I heard counsel for the petitioners on that question as a preliminary point. S. 482 of the Code on whose terms the arguments turned reads: "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. "

(3.) COUNSEL conceded that there is no case which he could find in which his proposition has been laid down. He however brought to my notice Sreethara Kamath v. . Jawala Prasad Guptha,1970 KLT. 45, a decision of a learned judge of this Court (Krishna Iyer J ). The petitioner was an accused in a case at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and he made a petition in this Court, under s. 561a, Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, which corresponds to S. 482 of the present Code, for quashing the prosecution The petition was dismissed and in the course of the discussion the learned judge made observations on the ambit of S. 56ia which to the extent they go deny extra territoriality to the Section: "it is doubtful if the Kerala High Court has power to set aside an order or quash a proceeding of a court outside its jurisdiction or area of superintendence. " (paragraph 4) and "the High Court's existing inherent powers which are preserved by S. 561a of the Crl P. Code cannot, it seems to me, extend to proceedings of courts outside its supervisory jurisdiction. " (paragraph 8)