The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a criminal proceeding is to be exercised to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Behera, J. - These four Criminal Miscellaneous Cases involving similar questions of facts and points of law have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. The Petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the 'Code', for short), to quash the criminal proceeding against them for criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof punishable u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code in four complaint cases in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore, after the Petitioners of complaint were made by the complainant-opposite parties and their statements were recorded u/s 200 of the Code. The grounds taken by the Petitioners are that the disputes between the parties are purely of a civil nature and in the absence of any prima facie material that the Petitioners had been guilty of criminal breach of trust, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate went wrong in taking cognizance of the offences against them. Originally the Chit Fund, namely, 'Digvijaya Chit Fund' represented by its manager, had been made one of the opposite parties by the Petitioners, but notice on that opposite party was dispensed with in each of these cases, as prayed for by the Petitioners, at their risk.

2. Mr. C.A. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has referred to the complaints and the initial statements of the opposite-parties recorded by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate and has filed the sample copy of the Pass Book which had been handed over to each of the opposite parties whose moneys deposited in trust with the Petitioners had allegedly been misappropriated, the copy of the application with the list of assets and liabilities of the chit fund filed before the Hon'ble Company Judge of this Court for liquidation and the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Company Judge and has submitted that no criminal action could be taken against the Petitioners and the opposite parties could approach the Official Liquidator for payment of their dues. He has contended that as the disputes are purely of a civil nature, no prosecution could lie and, therefore, these are fit cases in which this Court should quash the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. Mr. R.K. Patra, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that the materials on the basis of which cognizance had been taken prima facie showed that the Petitioners had committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the amounts deposited with them and these are not fit cases where the inherent jurisdictions of this Court should be exercised to quash the proceedings, as this power is to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases. The learned Counsel for both the sides have invited my attention to the principles laid down in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court as to when the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised.

3. The allegations made against the Petitioners were that they started a chit fund in the name of 'Digvijaya Chit Fund' of which the Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were the managing partners, the Petitioner No. 4 was the manager and the Petitioner No. 7 was the Bill Collector who used to collect subscriptions. The Petitioners, it was alleged, persuaded the opposite parties to enrol themselves as members and believing in good faith that they would be benefited by the investment, the opposite parties enrolled themselves as the members for a period of forty months and paid subscriptions. Had the last instalment been collected, the opposite parties would have completed the groups, but the Petitioner No. 7 did not turn up for collection. When the opposite parties went to the office and approached the Petitioners to receive the last instalment, they declined to receive saying that the funds of the firm had been misappropriated and the accounts of the firm were being checked up and they gave out