JALADHAR SWAIN Vs. SUCHITRA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the accused persons in a complaint case bearing number ICC 136 of 1982, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack.

(2.) A complaint was fried by opposite party No. I making allegations against the petitioners to the effect that they had committed offences under Sections 380, 324, 510, 109, 323, 420 and 379, Indian Penal Code. After taking the initial statement of the complainant by order dated 15.4.82. the learned Magistrate took Code against of the offences under Section 420, 323, 500 and 504 and 379, Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioners and issued summons to the accused fixing their appearance to 10.5.1982. The petitioners in this revision have invoked the inherent power of this Court to quash the said order taking Code against and to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.

(3.) BEFORE examining the rival contentions raised by the learned -counsel for the petitioners and opposite party No. 1, it is necessary to bear in mind the limitation in the matter of exercise of the inherent power to interfere with an order taking cognisance. It is an accepted principle of law that the High Court would exercise is inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case to prevent an abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible rule can be laid down but yet in some judicial decisions certain illustrations have been given to indicate where such inherent jurisdiction can be exercised. In the case of Satrughana Dalabehera and others v. State, 1983 C.L.R., 303 may learned brother Justice Behera, has exhaustively dealt with this aspect. I would merely extract a portion of the said judgment :