JUDGMENT

C. R. PAL, J. — The petitioner has come up with this petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of 2(b) C.C.No. 1 of 1999 of the Court of JMFC (Paradeep), Kujanga and the order (Annexure-5) passed in the said proceeding on 11.2.1999 refusing to release the trawler of the petitioner seized in the aforesaid case for an offence under Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the trawler named as ‘Mahapurusa’ bearing registration No. OCM (T) 207 with Ashok Leyland Engine No. A.L.11799. He has also been granted with the licence by the A.D.F., Marine, Kujanga under the Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1982 for operating the trawler as a fishing vessel. According to the petitioner, while his trawler was engaged in fishing beyond the prohibited area as notified in Schedules-A and B of the notification dated 27.9.1997 (Annexure-1) issued by the State Government in Forest and Environment Depart¬ment, the Forest Range Officer, Kujanga directed the crewmen to pull out the net from the water and finding that two Olive Ridley Turtles were in the not along with the fishes, seized the trawler and net etc. and arrested the crew members and got some papers signed by them forcibly.

3. A complaint was lodged before the learned JMFC, Kujanga on 28.1.1999 alleging that while patrolling in the mouth of Mahanadi near Nehru Bungalow in the Bay of Bengal, they saw a trawler engaged in fishing operation in the area close to the shore. As the inspecting staff apprehended that the petitioner’s men were engaged in netting of sea turtle, they asked the crew men to pull out the net and found two Olive ridley turtles were caught in the net along with the fishes. One of the turtles was dead. So they seized the trawler and the nets etc. for violation of Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and prepared the seizure list. They kept the seized articles in zima of one forest guard and prayed the Court to proceed against the accused persons under Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. A report was also submitted to the D.F.O. (Mangrove) wherein they alleged that the accused persons were found engaged in fishing 2 K.Ms. away from the shore. The accused persons were latter on released on bail by the learned JMFC, Kujanga. The petitioner filed a peti¬tion under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC to release the trawler to the custody of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.2.1999. The petitioner, therefore, has come up with this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding and to release the seized trawler.

4. In this case the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the proceeding as well as the impugned order, wherein the learned JMFC has refused to release the seized trawler in favour of the petitioner. Before adverting to record the finding, it is consid¬ered expedient to state the laws as laid down by the apex Court relating to the exercise of inherent power under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. or exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 of the Constitution, by the High Court.

(a) In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 Sureme Court 866, the appellant moved the High Court of Punjab under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for quashing the proceeding initiated by the first information report in question. During the pendency of that petition before the High Court, police submitted report under Sec. 173 of the Code. Subsequently after hearing the parties, the petition was dismissed with the observation that no case has been made out for quashing the proceeding under Sec. 561-A. Being aggrieved by the said Court, considering the law laid down in the earlier cases, held as follows :

“............ It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceed¬ings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secur