NAVIN CHANDER SHARMA,J. - (1.) YASHWANT Singh Singhvi non -petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s. Shiva Chemicals, Udaipur, who had obtained a soft loan of Rs. 1,84,000/ - from the Rajasthan Finance Corporation repayable in yearly instalments. Singhvi paid interest for the first year but failed to take the payment of instalments for the year 1978 -79 whereupon the RFC called upon Singhvi to make payment and on his failure, the R.F.C. took over management and possession of the factory on March 6, 1980.
(2.) SINGHVI instituted a civil original suit against the R.F.C. alleging that the latter had no right to remain in possession and that the possession which had been taken over by the R.F.C. may be declared invalid. He moved an application for temporary injunction. The Additional District Judge, Udaipur, granted temporary injunction restraining the RFC from auctioning the factory or any of its assets during the pendency of the suit and the Corporation was directed to take land tax to keep the chemicals in safe custody. Both the RFC and M/s Shiva Chemicals came in appeal before this Court. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 114 of 1980 filed by the RFC, M/s Shiva Chemicals Udaipur agreed before the learned Single Judge that the plant and machinery purchased with the said loan advanced by the RFC may be sold and sale proceeds may be adjusted against the money due to the corporation. In view of the above statement the RFC. was allowed to sell the plant and the machinery. It was told by Mr. A.L. Mehta appearing for the RFC that the Corporation did not want to exercise an Naturally when Singhvi after obtaining a soft loan of Rs. 1,84,000/ -from the R.F.C. sometime in the year 1978 and only paid interest for the first year, he could not expect that softness will continue. It was bound to be hardened as against such a defaulting single who wanted to take all undue advantage and who wanted to keep his interference in the factory by not lifting the chemicals despite ample opportunity being given by this Court by two interlocutory orders. His intentions were very clear. From the complaint which the filed, he alleged that on the date of the incident i.e. on October 27, 1982, he went to the factory on Dushera day to perform the opening ceremony of the factory and he was wrongfully restrained by the petitioner Kumar Rajeev and alleged that petitioner committed an offence under Section 341, 352 and 506 I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 341 I.P.C. against the petitioner and ordered that summons may be issued against the petitioner and others.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for Singhvi raised a preliminary objection and his objection is that remedy of filing the revision was available to the petitioner and he has not availed of that remedy and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A.K. Acharaya appearing for Singhvi has relied upon the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Gopal Chauhan v. Smt. Satya and Anr. reported in 1979 Cr. L.J. 446. In that case it was held that where a Magistrate orders the issue of process against an accused, it is open to him move the original court first and it would also be proper for him to avail that remedy be one invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. In ordinary course, therefore, the High Court would not like to encourage the litigant to invoke its extra ordinary powers or inherent powers without first utilising the remedy available to him with the lower authority.;