JAGDISH PRASAD AWASTHI Vs. SMT. SABITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from a Complaint Case No. C.R. 559 of 1982 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Tezpur under Section 420, I.P.C.

(2.) THE complainant O.P. lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that she obtained a loan from the branch of Allahabad Bank at Tezpur in connection with her purchase of a truck (No. AMD 213) and that taking advantage of this transaction the accused -petitioner who was the Branch Manager of the Bank obtained her signatures in four blank sheets. It is also her allegation that there was a dispute between the accused on the one hand and her firm "Calutta Roadways" on the other. It is her apprehension that the accused -petitioner could prepare documents in those blank sheets against her interest and might land her in troubles. This, according to the complainant, was done by the accused -petitioner with the intention of cheating her. The accused also obtained signatures in blank papers of three witnesses, namely, Ubam Chand Verma, Govinda Pathak and Gurdeb Singh.

(3.) NOW it has to be seen whether the orders of the learned Magistrate can be interfered with under Section 482, Cr.P.C. There has been a long chain of decision on the scope of the provisions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the apex Court of the country. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. : 1983CriLJ159 it was held by the Supreme Court that the provision under Section 482, Cr.P.C. confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass orders ex debits justifies in cases where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the Code has been seriously abused and also that it Is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate Courts. It was further held that the scope, ambit and range of Section 561(a) of the old Code which is equivalent to Section 482, Cr.P.C. is quite different from the powers conferred by the present Code under the provision of Section 397. Further it was held that under Section 482 of the present Code the inherent power of the High Court can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It was therefore laid down that the power which is an extraordinary one, has to be exercised sparingly. This is perhaps the latest decision of the Supreme Court is this respect which has been in line with the ratio given in Raj Kapoor v. : 1980CriLJ202 , Smt. Nagawa v. : 1976CriLJ1533 , Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. : 1977CriLJ1146 , as well as Madhu Limaye v. : 1978CriLJ165 .