The High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sparingly and should not quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings when the challan has been submitted and the case is listed for arguments on the question of framing of charges.

Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a petition filed by T.K. Khunger under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report No. 423, Police Station, Gharaunda, District Karnal, dated 7.12.1991, under Section 406/420 Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceeding arising thereto.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the present petition are that firm M/s Veer Rice and General Mills, Gharaunda, Tehsil and District Karnal is a Rice Miller and deals in selling of rice and Parmod Kumar Jain is one of its partners. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased rice on credit from the complainant firm mentioned above. Vide different bills Rs. 83,031.65 paise were due. The petitioner issued a cheque dated 5th November, 1990 drawn on State Bank of India, Gharaunda, Tehsil and District Karnal. The cheque was given to the complainant with the assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation and that sufficient amount is lying with the Bank, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned to the complainant with the remarks "Refer to Drawer". It was asserted in the complaint that the accused petitioner has dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver the goods and as such misappropriated the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as per the averments made in the complaint, there is no offence that can be drawn against the petitioner much less punishable under Section 406/420 Indian Penal Code.

4. In the reply filed, preliminary objection has been taken that report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure has already been submitted in the Court for trial and that petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the trial Court where the case was fixed for arguments on charge. The law is well settled and reference with advantage may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1993 S.C. 892. The scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been explained in paragraph No. 134 as under

"Thus the inherent power under this Section can be exercised by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, it has been observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 S.C. 47 : (1978) 1 SCR 749, that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code of redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code."

Further more, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should normally refrain from giving the premature decision in a case wherein entire facts are incomplete and sketchy.

5 It is in this backdrop that one has to look at the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State namely the challan has since been submitted and case is filed for arguments on the question if charge has to be framed or not therein and alternative remedy in the trial Court is available.

6. Indeed the petitioner can raise all these arguments there, that taking into consideration the averments made by the State, no case is made out against his client before the Court where the case is listed for arguments on the point of charge. That being so, this Court will refrain from exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Close to heels is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Another etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and Another etc., AIR 1991 S.C. 1260. An identical plea had been put forward before the Supreme Court, Honble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh