The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of invoking inherent jurisdiction, the need for clean hands and equitable background, and the interpretation of the provisions of S. 173(8) of the Criminal P.C.

This is a petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. The prayer is to quash Ext. P2 order passed on Ext. P1 petition and all further proceedings in C.C. 46 of 1983 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda. There is also a prayer that the petitioners may be dropped from the array of accused in the case. There are two petitioners.

2. The short question for consideration is whether Ext. 2 order was passed by the Magistrate without authority and as such an abuse of process of court which resulted in miscarriage of justice requiring interference at the hands of this Court by invoking the inherent power.

3. The short facts are :- Second respondent, Ramadevan, is the de facto complainant which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur as C.C. 102 of 1982. Subsequently that case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda and renumbered as C.C. 46 of 1983. Originally, when the case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur there were three accused namely, Babu, Jagadeesan and Gopalakrishnan. The offences for which that case was charge-sheeted were Ss. 419 and 420 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code. It related to an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the second respondent regarding 70 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the first petitioner, Aravindakshan on 15-12-1980. Rs. 22,000/- is alleged to have been received under agreement as advance.

4. Second respondent received a notice from the first petitioner on the basis of the agreement. When the notice was received, the second respondent filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police against the first petitioner and the abovesaid accused persons. That was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodungallur. The Sub-Inspector registered crime No. 225 of 1981 of the Kodungallur Police Station for the abovesaid offences and investigated the case. Investigation revealed that the first petitioner has no hand in the crime. It was also revealed by investigation that the alleged agreement was forged at the instance of the three accused by impersonation. During investigation of that case, the present first petitioner was questioned. He took the stand that the agreement was not executed by the second respondent in his favour and that it was a forgery and impersonation at the instance of the accused. Therefore instead of implicating him as an accused he was made charge witness No. 2. The case was charge-sheeted only against the above said three accused.

5. After the charge-sheet was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, the first petitioner changed his attitude. He issued lawyer notice to the second respondent on the basis of the agreement as if it was executed in his favour by the second respondent himself. Impleading the second respondent and Jagadeesan, one of the accused in the Criminal case, as defendants, he filed O.S. 215 of 1982 before the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda for return of the advance amount received under the agreement. Therefore the second respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the Magistrate requesting that further investigation may be made regarding the complexity of the first petitioner and others as a whole. He also alleged commission of other offences requiring further investigation. By Ext. P2 order dated 23-11-1982, the Magistrate allowed the prayer and ordered further investigation by the Circle Inspector of Police. As a result of further investigation, Babu (first accused) was deleted from the array of the accused and a further report was filed before court regarding the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 511 and 420 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code. The original accused 2 and 3 excluding Babu were arrayed as accused 1 and 2 and petitioners 1 and 2 were arrayed as accused 3 and