P.N.Goel - (1.) THESE are two connected applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2.) THE matter relates to a Film Sholey produced by Sri G. P. Sippi, applicant no. 1, of application no. 6193 of 1976. This film/picture was shown in Deep Cinema in the town of Etawah in or about September, and October, 1976. On 9-10-1976 Sri Vijay Kumar Shukla, opposite party no. 1 in criminal miscellaneous application No. 6913 of 1976 filed a complaint against (1) Sri G. P. Sippi, producer of the film, (2) M/s. Rajshree Pictures Private Ltd., Delhi, Distributors of the Film (3) Sri K. D. Bhalla, Proprietor, Deep Cinema, Etawah and (4) Manager, Deep Cinema, Etawah, under Sections 120-A, 415, 419, 420, 463,464, 470, 471 and 478 IPC in the [court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. THE criminal case which arose on the basis of this complaint was transferred to the court of Munsif Magistrate, Etawah. THE Munsif Magistrate summoned the applicants under Section 420 IPC. THEreafter on 8-11-1976 petition no. 6913 of 1976 was moved in this court by the four persons who were arrayed as accused in the complaint (copy Annexure A of the application). The Film Sholey was exhibited in Saroj Cinema in the town of Moradabad from September, 1975. On 20-12-1975, Dr. Shabbir Ahmad, opposite party filed complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Moradabad against (1) Tara Chand Barjatia, applicant, Distributor of M/s. Rajshree Pictures Private Ltd., Delhi (2) Sri Krishna Kumar Pura of Sapna Talkies, New Delhi and (3) Sri B. S. Sharma, Proprietor, Saroj Cinema, Moradabad, for having entered into a conspiracy to cheat the complainant and the public of Moradabad as well as for cheating them. On 15-2-1977, Sri Tara Chand Barjatia, applicant filed application No. 914 of 1977. In this application he made averment to the earlier application No. 6193 of 1976. It will be seen that the applicants of both the cases have invoked the inherent powers of this Court, Sec. 482 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) which corresponds to Sec. 561-A of the Old CrPC 1898. This section lays down that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It will be noticed that the Code does not confer inherent powers on any other criminal court and that it simply confers inherent powers on the High Court. The High Court is ordinarily required to exercise this power in 3 cases, (1) to give effect to any order under this Code (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any court and (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It means that the inherent power is to be exercised within the limits mentioned in this section. So far as the present two applications are concerned, Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicants did not urge, that this Court should exercise its inherent power to give effect to any order under this Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. He contended that this Court shall exercise this power to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In this connection he urged that the matter involved was trivial and in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrates should not have taken cognizance on the basis of the complaints filed by the opposite parties in the two cases. Section 95 simply says : "Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any hare in, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would compLaln of such harm."
(3.) SRI P. C. Chaturvedi, referred to the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, 1978 ACrR 36. In this case there were proceedings under Section 107 CrPC between the parties. Both the parties applied for copies of these proceedings on 20-12-1965. One set of copy meant for the complaint was prepared, but it was taken by the accused by signing his name. A lew days later another copy was prepared which was taken by the complainant. The complainant then filed a complaint against the accused. The Supreme Court observed, "The complaint itself contains allegations of a very petty nature, of which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and which would be trivial act under sec. 95 of the Indian Penal Code for which no criminal proceedings could be taken." Learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that in the instant cases the matter was not so trivial and that the allegations of the complaints should be analysed. They referred to the case of R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 in which the scope of Section 561-A of the Old CrPC was enunciated at length in the following words:- "It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings... ............That is the function of the trial Magistrate, ami ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained." ;