IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot quash cognizance taken of an offence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by appreciating the evidence in coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out in FIR or charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the State is directed against the order of the Patna High Court dated 5.3.1992, by which order the High Court has quashed the cognizance taken against the respondent under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Shri Uddai Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanbad Police Station was on duty at the Police Station on 8.1.1992. At 5.15 P.M. two Constables brought a truck bearing Registration No. HRX-3125 along with its driver, Khalasi and two other persons and reported that they found the truck coming speedly and crossing the Railway gate and did not stop even though the vehicle was asked to stop. They, therefore, chased the vehicle and stopped the same after some time and found that the truck has been loaded with pieces of iron tracks which were the property of BCCL. On their enquiry about the documents, a copy of challan was shown but suspecting something wrong they brought the truck with the persons to the Police Station. The Sub-Inspector then found on checking that most of the iron loaded on the truck were the pieces of the track trolly used in BCCL. On suspicion the Sub-Inspector asked the driver who told that the truck has been loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla, the respondent in this appeal and one Surendra Agarwalla, proprietor of Associate Iron and Steel Company at Saraidhela has purchased the same. But they could not produce any document. He therefore submitted a report to the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station alleging that the accused persons are guilty of offence under Section 414 of IPC and the said report was treated as First Information Report. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent and five other persons on 21.1.1992. In G.R. Case No. 107 of 1992, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the papers submitted by the police and all other relevant materials took cognizance of the offence in question on 1.2.1992. The respondent thereafter filed application in the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the order of cognizance taken and the said application was registered as Criminal Case No. 475 of 1992. The learned Judge by the impugned order having quashed the cognizance taken by the Magistrate so far as respondent is concerned, the State has approached this Court.

4. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by trying to appreciate the evidence on record and thereafter recording the finding that no prima facie case has been made out. Mr. Singh further contended that notwithstanding the well recognised principle enunciated by this Court that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised very sparingly and cauciously and only when the court comes to the conclusion that there has been an abuse of the process of the court, but in the case in hand the learned Judge examined the legality of the order of cognizance as a court of appeal and as such the order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the High Court having examined the material and having come to the conclusion that the materials on record do not make out an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, the court was fully justified in quashing the order of cogzinance and the same order should not be interferred by this Court.

5. It has been held by this Court in several cases that the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very sparingly and cauciously used only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the court, if such power is not exercised. So far as