Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By this petition under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the criminal proceedings instituted against him for alleged offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 427, 468, 323, 395, 426 IPC, pending in the Court of the Magistrate. 1st Class, Nongpoh. By order dated 14.3,96 passed by this Court further proceedings before the trial Court in CR (Misc) Case No. 1 of 1994 was stayed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invoked section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceeding. Although there is no dearth of case law on the point, but before referring the same, let us have a look on the language of the section.

"Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect, the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

Reading the section it appears that the language of the section is plain enough and admits of no room for any ambiguity. The object of section 482 CrPC is three 6 fold, they are - The inherent power by the High Court (i) is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice; and (iii) should not be exercised as against the express bar of law and engrafted in any other provision of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Going through the petition, the grounds raised therein and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no case for invoking the inherent power is made out. At the initial most stage, the Court is not required to take a meticulous microscopic view of the matter. Going by the allegations as made in the complaint and the statement made by the complainant the prima facie satisfaction drawn by the Court cannot be said to be baseless. The law on the point is well settled. The Supreme Court in AR Antulay vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718 has explained :

"Where it is said that Court issues process, it means the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and visible manifestation of taking cognizance, process is issued which means that the accused is called upon to appear before the Court. This may either lake the form or a summon of a warrant, as the case may be.''

5. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, the Supreme Court held :

"When the Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking congnizance of an offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations made in the complaint, whether those charge sheet do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and whether resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not ? When the prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and whether in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even through it may be at a preliminary stage."

6. More recently the Supreme Court in CBI vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd, AIR 1996 SC 2452, has held :

"For the purpose of quash

Click Here to Read the rest of this document