JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioners herein, namely, Mobashar Javed Akbar and others have sought to challenge an order dated 28.1.2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 420, IPC in I.C.C. No.41 of 2000 pending before the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the basis of a complaint filed by opposite party. Asian Age (Utkal) Publication (P) Ltd.

2. On perusal of the complaint filed by the opposite party (Complainant, it appears that the allegations contained therein pertain to purported allegations for violation of terms and conditions of a tripartite agreement dated 7.5.1995 entered into by Asian Age (Utkal) Publication (P) Ltd. (Complainant-Company) and Mr. Mobashar Javed Akbar (Opp.Party No.1) and the then Franchise Holder Sri Swapna Sudhan Bose representing Asian Age Newspaper.

3. The complainant alleges that he had incurred substan¬tial expenditure pursuant to the memorandum of understanding entertained into between the parties amounting to Rs.19,47,693/- towards pre publication expenses including sum of Rs.7,12,400/- for two MTNL lines. It was further alleged that due to illegal aborting the contract, the accused persons had not returned the amount spent by the complainant. Accordingly a complaint was filed, alleging therein that the accused persons had committed deception and wrongful gain and or caused wrongful loss and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the money spent by the complainant company. It was further alleged that in spite of demand made on the accused persons for reimbursement/return of the said money, they did not respond to the demand notice issued on behalf of the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons had committed an offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

4. From the impugned order dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-2) it appears that the learned S.D.J.M. on perusal of the complaint petition, initial statement recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and the documents annexed to the complaint petition came to hold that a prima facie case under Section 420, IPC had been made out against the accused persons, and, therefore, took cognizance of the offence under Section 420, IPC. The accused-petitioners herein sought to challenge the order of cognizance, inter alia, on the ground that the inter se dispute incepted between the parties is essentially civil in nature and a civil suit bearing O.S. No.28 of 2001 was filed on 23.1.2001 by the complainant (through his wife Smt. Asha Manjari Mishra) before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, Bhubaneswar, in which based on the self same allegations as contained in the present complaint case, a decree for damages has been sought for amount¬ing of Rs.50,00,000/- with a further prayer for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.8,76,000/- with pendente lite interest. According¬ly the Appellant submits that the filing of the present complaint case and passing of an order of cognizance dated 28.1.2002, clearly amounts to an “abuse of the process of the Court” and, therefore, justifies the interference by the High Court in exer¬cise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on a reading of the complaint petition and documents appended thereto, as well as the initial statement of the complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., no criminal offence under Section 420, IPC has been made out against the accused-petitioners, for the purpose of justifying an order of cognizance, which is impugned herein.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is well settled that powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been vested on the High Court to act ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is also well settled that inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. though wide, have to be exercised sparingly, care¬fu