Abhiram Singh, J.@mdashThis is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Code'') for quashing the complaint petition dated 22nd December, 1979 (Annexure-1), the order dated 2-1-1980 taking cognizance (Annexure-2) and the order dated'' 23-1-1982 by the charges under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code were framed (Annexure-3) against the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous case, in short, are that the opposite party No. 1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 75 of 79 pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo, at Tenughat alleging therein that the petitioner illegally ramoved 300 M. Ts. of sludge rejects coming out of the reservoir of coal washeries situated in mouza Dugdha, in respect of which Mr. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwal had taken lease from the State of Bihar. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioner on 2-1-1980. Subsequently on 23-1-1982 charges under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code were also framed against the petitioner. There was further progress in the case and it was fixed for the judgment to be delivered on 23-12-1982.
3. Sri R.N. Sahai Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the facts alleged in the complaint petition do not constitute any offence against the petitioner and as such the prosecution started against him should be quashed. He has further submitted in view of the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. 1085/82 and in petition for special leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5303 of 81 by the Supreme Court, the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot continue legally. He has further submitted that the inherent power of this Court can be exercised at any stage of the case. Mr. S. Dayal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand has contended that there is nothing in the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court to help the case of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the facts alleged in the complaint petition clearly make out a case against the petitioner.
4. I have carefully perused the complaint petition and the orders issuing summons and framing of the charges, and I do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the orders which have been challenged. The order of this Court (Annexurc-4) does not indicate anything so that it may be held that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner, The order by this Court was passed on 26-H-1982 whereas the occurrence relates to the year 1979. The order of this Court simply says that respondent No. 6 of C.W.J.C. 1085 of 82 gave an undertaking in that case that he will not go upon the lands of the petitioner appertaining plot No. 3680 of khata No. 235 of mouza Duoha. The order of the Supreme Court (Annexure-5) shows that SLP had been filed by one Mumtazir Ansari and not by this petitioner. In that case, the Supreme Court only ordered that the validity of the lease in favour of Sri Agarwal should be decided in the case before the Patna High Court. This order by the Supreme Court was also passed on 17-8-1981. Both the orders referred to above do not appear relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. These orders do not indicate as to how facts alleged in the complaint petition do not constitute any offence. There is a clear allegation that the petitioner had removed the sludges rejects which had been taken in lease by Sri Agarwal from the State of Bihar.
5. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that is
If the case of the accused was that the allegations in the complaint petition do not constitute the offence complained of or that the complaint has to be quashed for any ground available in law they should have approached High Court at any rate immediately after the charges were framed. The records disclose that it was the 4th accused who moved the High Court to quash the proceeding on March 17, 1969 earlier than the other accused. Even by that date, several prosecution witnesses had been examined and they had also been cross-examined by the accused. Several items of documentary evidence had already been led during the trial. Only prosecution witnesses and a court witnesses remained to be examined. The proper course at that stage to be adopted by the High Court was to allow the proceedings to go on and to come to its logical conclusion one way or the other and decline to interfere with those proceedings.
In the instant case also, I find that the Criminal proceeding against the petitioner is almost complete and only judgment is to be delivered. It is true that the provisions laid down in Section 482 of the Code does not speak of the stage at which only, the inherent power of the Court can be exercised. But it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to at what-stage of the case and in what circumstances, this Court can exercise its inherent power. It is clear that this Court can exercise its inherent power only for the purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. None of these requirements is fulfiled in the instant case and as such it does not appear to be a fit case in which the inherent powers of the Court should be exercised.
6. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed.
