MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 249/78, M.K. Gupta v. T.F. Pardiwala and Ors. pending in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Camp Rawatbhata and arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE accused -petitioner (1) Pardiwala is the Chief Project Engineer folding the charge of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata and Narela. The accused petitioner (2) O.P. Bansal, who belongs to the cadre of RAS is the Chief Administrative Officer of the said project at Rawat Bhata The accused -petitioner (3) B.P. Srivastava Is the Chief Security Officer, Atomic power Project, Rawat Bhata, and is a retired police officer, and accused petitioner (4) Pritam Singh is the Assistant Security Officer, in the Raj as than Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata. A complaint was filed by the non -petitioner (2) against the four accused -petitioners in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Begun, Camp Rawat Bhata, on May 26,1978 with the allegations that on 19 -5 -78 at about 4 P.M. a watchman, whose name he does not know, was sent at his house to call him. It was given out by the said watchman that he was required at Labour Welfare Centre at about 6 P.M. in connection with the quarter. When he reached the Labour Welfare Centre at 6 P.M. that day, all the four accused were present and they pressed him to withdraw the complaint which he had filed against the Chief Security Officer and Pritam Singh inconnection with the breaking open the locks of his quarter. But, when he did not agree to it, he was beaten and abused by the accused -petitioners. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 and further recorded the statement of K.V. Sharma Under Section 202(1), Cr. P.C. and vide his order dated 27 -5 -78 took cognizance of an offence Under Section 323, 385 and 504, IPG against Pardiwala and Bansal. He also took cognizance Under Section 323, IPC against Mr. Srivastava and Under Section 323 and 342, IPC against Pritamsingh All the accused put in appearance and applications were filed by them for exempting them from personal appearance, which too was dis -allowed, and against that order a separate Misc. Application has also been filed which shall be disposed of by a separate order. It is contended bf Mr. Mathur, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that M.K. Gupta is an ex -employee of the Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata, and he bad been allotted a quarter for residential purposes, but his services were later on terminated and he was required to vacate the quarter, which he did not do. Therefore, proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against Shri Gupta and an order of eviction was passed. He preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, and that too was dismissed, and in order to wreck vengance this false case has been lodged against the accused petitioners. He submits that even if toe allegations are taken at their face value, they do not go to make out a case Under Section 323, 385 and 304, IPC against Pardiwala and Bansal, and also do not go to make out a case Under Section 323, IPC against Mr. Srivastava as also Under Section 323 and 342, IPC against Pritam Singh. He contends that the order of taking cognizance against the said accused -petitioners is nothing but the abuse of the process of the court and it is a proper case in which the entire proceedings should be quashed. It is further contended that even if some incident took place, it was of minor nature, and the case was such which is covered under Section 95, IPC as the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would make a complaint of such harm. Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate for Mr. Gupta, on the other hand, contends that the evidence which has been adduced under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P.C and on which cognizance of the offence has been taken, is such from which is prima facie case against the accused petitioners for which cognizance has been taken is made out, and merely because on appreciation of evidence, this Court may take a different view no Interference in the exercise of inherent powers is called for.
(3.) THE powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. which are called inherent powers are unlimited and it is well settled that the court is required to exercise these powers either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to give or to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order or the part of the order under the Code. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muni swamy and Ors. : 1977CriLJ1125 , their Lordships have dealt with the inherent powers of this Court in criminal and civil matters. It has been observed as follows: Gajandra Garkar J. who spoke for the Court observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which can govern the exercise of High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as one conferred by Section 482 ought not to be encased within the straight -jacket of a rigid formula.;