NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings dated 12.12.2000 (Annexure P-11 and P-12), initiated by respondent No. 4, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further prayed that respondent No. 2 and 3 be directed to arrest all the accused, who have been involved in FIR No. 138 dated 14.12.2000 (Annexure P-13), lodged under Section 295-A/506/452/34 IPC. The petitioner has further prayed that petitioner may be allowed to open the shop No. 193/3 situated in the back side of Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh.
(2.) SHRI G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh. He prayed that the petition qua quashing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed as infructuous. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer for quashing the proceedings dated 12.12.2000 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has become infructuous. The only prayer which survives in this petition is with regard to the arrest of the respondents 5 and 6 under Sections 295-A/506/452/34 IPC. This prayer of the petitioner can not be accepted in view of the affidavit filed by SHO, Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh who has deposed in his affidavit that the allegations on the basis of which FIR No. 138 dated 14.12.2000, under Sections 295-A/506/452/34 IPC has been registered, are found to be false. On an enquiry conducted by Dy. S.P. Amloh on the directions given by SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib. During investigation statement of Shri R.S. Jangu, S.D.M. Amloh has been recorded in which he has stated that no occurrence has taken place. Statements of Munish Kumar s/o Balbir Chand Verma, Suresh Kumar s/o Mahadev Parshad, Vishal Goyal son Ram Lal, Shankar Dass M.C. Mandi Gobindgarh, Lal Chand s/o Kor Sen were recorded. As per their statements, no occurrence took place in the shop. He has deposed that after the investigation FIR No. 138 has been sent untraced. After investigation, it has been found that the allegations in the FIR are false.
(3.) IN view of the affidavit of Devinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh, Sh. G.S. Dhanoa, Dy. Supdt. of Police and Shri R.S. Jangu, SDM, Amloh, no direction can be issued for the arrest of the respondents 5 and 6. If the petitioner has any grievance against the cancellation report, he has right to protest it as and when it is produced before the illaqua Magistrate and he has also alternative remedy to file a complaint before illaqua Magistrate as it has been laid down in Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others, 1991 Crl. L.J. 2457 as under :- "Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the provisions of criminal procedure code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demand it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position that subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuance of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief." In Mohan Lal and another v. State, Opposite Parties, 1974 Crl. L.J. 1407 it has been held as under :- "The inherent power of the High Court under that provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purposes of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable or revisable and has became final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings." In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;