SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Shankarlal, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of State on the admission of this petition. I have also perused the impugned order dated 14 -1 -2003. passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, Sikar on the Final Report No. 89/1999 in FIR No. 178/ 99 PS Srimadhopur, Sikar whereby cognizance has been taken against the non petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 471 IPC only and no cognizance has been taken against other non petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 for the offences under Sections 420. 468. 467. 471 and 120 -B IPC.

(2.) IT is well settled law that scope and ambit of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very limited. The powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection for the purposes mentioned therein. In the instant case it cannot be said at this stage that court below has committed any abuse of process of court or it is otherwise essential for securing ends of justice to interference in the impugned order. It also cannot be said that the interference by this court is called for giving effect in any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below has after consideration and discussion of the material on record passed the impugned order and no ostensible error or perversity in the impugned order is disclosed. If during trial further materials indicating the involvement/complicity of remaining accused persons prima facie appear on record and certain other offences are disclosed from the evidence adduced during the trial, the petitioner may apply under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for proceeding against them but on the materials on record, no case for interference in the impugned order in exercise of powers of this court vested under Section 482 Cr. P.C. appears to be made out and this petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly.