( 1 ) THE petitioner-Govindbhai Chhaganbhai, by this Misc. Criminal application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "code"), has moved this Court for getting quashed and setting aside the impugned order issuing process against him by the learned J. M. F. C. , Kodinar in a Criminal Case No. 894 of 1989 on the basis of the complaint filed by one Rajendrabhai Gajendrabhai Mehta against him for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 403, 406, 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) FEW relevant facts :- According to the complainant-Rajendrabhai gajendrabhai Mehta, Manager, Auto Hirers (Trucking Division), Kodinar the incident in question took place on 22-1-1988 when the petitioner who at the relevant time was a driver of one Truck bearing No. GTH 7407, was entrusted with 240 bags of Cement valued at Rs. 14,400. 00 at "gujarat Ambuja factory" to be delivered at Navsari to "gujarat Agricultural University", did not deliver the same at the said destination. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on 24-2-1988 and accordingly, he filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned J. M. F. C,, Kodinar for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 403, 406, 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the learned Magistrate in turn sent it to the Police for investigation under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code. After the investigation was over, the Police submitted a report on the basis of (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.) which, the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner which is sought to be challenged by the present petition.

( 3 ) MR. B. K. Parikh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police during the course of investigation submitted alongwith the charge-sheet, do not substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint making out any prima facie case against him. According to Mr. Parikh, the investigation material on the record clearly show that the case was of the civil nature only and that the learned Magistrate has committed an obvious error in mechanically issuing the process against the petitioner which deserves to be at once quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) NOW the facts remain that turning to the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that the offences under Sees. 407 and 420 are warrant triable cases for which the procedure is prescribed in Chapter XIX of the Code under the heading "trial of Warrant cases by a Magistrate". Accordingly, this being a case instituted on a Police report, the same is governed by the procedure laid down under Sees. 238 to 243 of the Code. Section 239 of the Code pertains to the circumstances when accused shall be discharged. The said section reads as under :"sec. 239. If, upon considerating the Police report and the documents sent with it under Sec. 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. "

( 5 ) NOW, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above and the relevant provisions as contained in Sec. 239 of the code, there is no scope whatsoever for this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary power of inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings and process issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. This is not a case where it can be contended by the petitioner that the facts alleged in the complaint do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged against him, and therefore, on that count, the process deserves to be quashed. What is merely contended before me is the fact that the statement of the witnesses recorded by police during the course of inve