G K MOHANTY Vs. PRATAP KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the inherent jurisdiction of this Court wider S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') to quash a criminal proceeding initiated against him by the opposite party (complainant ) on the basis of a petition of complaint made by the latter. Cognisance has been taken with regard to commission of offences punishable under Ss.420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Penal Code').

(2.) As averred in the petition of complaint and stated by the opposite party before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, the petitioner, having taken two trucks belonging to the opposite party on hire and being liable to pay Rs. 28,000/- (38,000/-?) therefore, issued three cheques for Rs.20,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- for encashment, but the cheques were dishonoured with a note 'Stop Payment" in respect of two cheques and with a note "Payment stopped by the Drawer" on another. These acts have constituted commission of the offences by the petitioner, as alleged.

(3.) Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.482 of the Code to quash a criminal proceeding is to be exercised in appropriate case to prevent an abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The criminal proceeding instituted against an accused person shall ordinarily be proceeded with in accordance with law. As held by this Court in ILR (1973) Cuttack 1327, D. Surya Rao v. Liaquat Ali Khan, the allegation must be assumed to be correct until the trial has begun. Where, however, the allegation made in the first information report or in the complaint, even on their face value and if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, the High Court may exercise its power under S.482 of the Code. Reference has been made to some of the reported cases in Dr. Radhanath Rath v. Balakrishna Swain, (1985) 59 Cut LT 226 : (1985) 2 Crimes 139.