SHRI VIVEK SUDHAKAR CHITTEWAN Vs. SHRI MUKUT MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15 -06 -2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in C.R. Case No. 669(s) 2011 talking cognizance of the offence under Sections 216/201/420/465/468/506/120B/34, IPC. The facts, leading to filing of this revision, in brief, are that the respondent lodged an FIR against Ms. Relita P. Lyngdoh Talang and the police on completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against Ms. Relita P. Lyngdoh Talang, which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 148(s)/2009. Although, one Pushpa Narain Shetty was also arrayed as accused in the said FIR being associates of Ms. Relita P. Lyngdoh Talang, no charge sheet' was submitted against her. The respondent then filed a complaint case being No. 298(S)/2010 against Pushpa Narain Shetty and others. The Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to said Puspha Narain Shetty. But: the summons could not be served upon. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant made inquiry at the address of said Pushpa Narain Shetty and came to know that she had transferred her flat/house No. 304 in the building No. F -1 situated at Rashmi Complex, Mangal Nagar, Mira Road (e), Thane -401107, Maharashtra through one, Md. Khalid Khan, a Real Estate Consultants, Lucky Homes, Crystal Plaza, Shop No. 12, Mira Road (E), Thane. Then another complaint was lodged by the respondent wherein, it is alleged that the accused i.e. the present petitioner who knew Pushpa Narain Shetty and had some business connection with her, refused to divulge her present address. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused warned the complainant not to proceed against Pushpa Narain Shetty, in the matter, any further or else face the consequences thereof. It is further alleged that the present petitioner is an accomplice of said Pushpa Narain Shetty in the cheating case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and one witness and took cognizance of the offence by issuing summons to the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that in the complaint petition, filed by the complainant discloses a prima facie case against the accused -petitioner. The discretion under Section 482, Cr PC should be exercised only in the exceptional cases. Relying on his submissions, he has cited the cases of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another, : (2007) 15 SCC 494, Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others, : (2008) 1 SCC 474, M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha and Others, : (2001) 5 SCC 156 and Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, : (2007) 12 SCC 1, wherein, it has been held that inherent power under Section 482 though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Series of decisions have been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there are at least some materials indicating the guilt of the accused.