SANJEEV GOYAL Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.D. Saxena, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the accused/petitioner has been directed against an order dated 24th July,2008 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Cri. Rev. No.132/08, arising out of the order dated 1/2/08 passed by the trial Magistrate in Cri. Case No.190/08, taking cognizance against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C., which stood confirmed by the revisional court.

(2.) IN brief, the facts just for adjudication of the matter are that on 2nd January 2000, the accused, who was working as a Contractor was said to have been assigned the work of construction by the Government Girls College Morena. It was alleged that he borrowed certain materials to be used in the construction of roof by the respondent No.1-complainant on the assurance that he will return the said materials within a period of one month. The accused despite being made several demands by the complainant, did not return the same to the complainant. When no action was taken by the Police on his report, under such circumstances, the complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 before the trial Magistrate against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance issued the process against the accused/petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Magistrate, the revision under Section 397/401 I.P.C. was preferred before the revisional court which was dismissed vide order dated 24th July 2008, hence this petition.

(3.) PRIOR to it, in Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code.