JUDGMENT:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. -- Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the application filed before it in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). Prayer in the application before the High Court was for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.273/2006 including the complaint on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gulbarga.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

Respondent was appointed as a Peon in K.L.E. Society's Women Arts and Commerce College in the year 1992 of which the appellant no.3 was the Principal at the relevant point of time. Appellant no.2 was the Secretary at the relevant point of time and the Society was represented by its Chairman, Board of Management. He resigned from service on 17.12.2003. The complaint was filed on 13.1.2006 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 403, 405 and 415 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. The same was questioned by the appellants. The stand before the High Court was that the complaint was misconceived, no offence was made out even on indepth scrutiny of the complaint. In fact, the respondent had filed petition in terms of Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'ID' Act) and also filed writ petition claiming parity in salary which was disposed of by giving the direction to consider the respondents' case. In the petition in terms of Section 33-(C)(2) of the ID Act the respondent had stated that lesser amounts were paid and signatures for higher amounts were taken. The said petition is pending. In the writ petition before the High Court there was no mention about any deduction. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was given to understand that certain amounts were being deducted for repayment at the time of retirement or cessation of his job. In the notice issued on 23.11.2004, there is no mention about this aspect. It was, therefore, submitted that the complaint was nothing but an abuse of process of law.

4. The complainant-respondent resisted the stand by stating that the offences are clearly spelt out.

5. The High Court dismissed the petition holding as follows: "The respondent lodged a private complaint against the petitioner on 13.1.2006 along with six supporting documents. After perusing the complaint, the documents and the sworn statement of the respondent, process is issued against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings."

6. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand taken before the High Court. On the other hand, respondent also reiterated the stand taken before the High Court.

7. One thing is clear on reading of High Court's reasoning that the High Court came to the conclusion that deductions were made without any rhyme and reason and without any basis. That was not the case of the complainant. On the other hand, it tried to make out a case that the deduction was made with an object. That obviously, was the foundation to substantiate claim of entrustment. On a close reading of the complaint it is clear that the ingredients of Sections 403, 405 and 415 do not exist. The statement made in the complaint runs contrary to the averments made in the petition in terms of Section 33-(C) (2).

8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisd