ORAL ORDER

1. This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the Criminal Case No. 261 of 2012 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau, Kutchchh.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: -

2.1. It is alleged that on 17.04.2012 when the police personnel were on night patrolling, at around 2:00 a.m. while checking the vehicles on the road, the police has found one Mahindra Maxi Truck in suspicious condition with some scrap material of Brass of about 2500 kilograms.

2.2. On inquiry, no satisfactory answers had been found and the police also asked for the substantiating documents for the scrap material of Brass which was being carried. In absence of any such satisfactory details, the truck and the scrap material both had been seized under Section 124 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that an application for return of articles which had been seized by the police had been moved before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau where the bills of the Brass scrap had been produced before the Court concerned which released the Vehicle bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-24-U-2496 being Mahindra Maxi Jeep with all loaded scrap on it on 23.04.2012. 2.4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 had falsely lodged a complaint under Section 124 of the Gujarat Police Act against the petitioners and only with a view to harass the petitioners, the entire process of seizure etc. had been carried out.

2.5. According to the petitioner, he has a valid driving license and valid RC Book of vehicle bearing Registration No. GJ-24- U-2496 in his name. The petitioner had therefore chosen to approach this Court seeking quashment of the charge-sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau in Criminal Case No. 261 of 2012. It is alleged that the proceedings are manifestly malafide and are instituted with the ulterior motive.

3. This Court (Coram:- Mr. A.J.Desai, J.) issued notice on 09.03.2015 and on 07.01.2016 this Court (Coram: - Mr. J.B.Pardiwala, J.) directed the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 261 of 2012 to remain stayed. This protection has continued till date.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Manraj Barot appearing for the petitioners since has become an Assistant Government Pleader, learned advocate Mr. Vinod Garama replaced learned advocate Mr. Manraj Barot.

5. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Vinod Gamara appearing for the petitioners who has fervently argued before this Court that had the papers not been available to substantiate the say of the petitioners, they could not have had the possession of vehicle as well as the goods of Brass scrap within three to four days of such seizure. This surely is a malafide action on the part of the police and deserves quashment.

5.1. He further has urged that the provision under Code of Criminal Procedure clearly refers to the need for the Court to exercise the inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jhaveri has strongly resisted this on the ground that the inherent jurisdiction needs to be exercised sparingly and with caution. They being extra-ordinary powers, are not to be used as remedy of appeal. She further has urged that when there is no other remedy available to the litigant and when there is no specific provision made available, the Court may be of the opinion that there is a complete abuse of process of law and it can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. She further has urged that it is not for this Court to embark upon the inquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by the evidence or not.

6.1. She further has urged that the production of documents which had resulted into release of vehicle