Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Bai vs Shyam Singh Bhadoriya on 25 February, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
:: 1 ::
M.Cr.C. No.9167/2021
(Smt. Meera Bai & Another vs. Shyam Singh Bhadoriya)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Mis. Cri. Case. No.9167/2021
Smt. Meera Bai & Another ..........Petitioners
Versus
Shyam Singh Bhadoriya ......Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance Shri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : No Reserved on : 16.2.2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- O R D E R-
(25/2/2021) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6/2/2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Case No.624/2018; whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of CrPC for their discharge has been dismissed.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition :: 2 ::
M.Cr.C. No.9167/2021
(Smt. Meera Bai & Another vs. Shyam Singh Bhadoriya) in short are that respondent- complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act') alleging therein that the petitioners and respondent are in cordial relationship with each other. On 28/2/2017, the petitioners/accused had taken Rs.1,00,000/- for their personal requirements and in lieu of that, the petitioners/accused gave a cheque bearing No.00014 to the respondent on 30/5/2017. The cheque was presented before Bank of Baroda, Brach Gwalior, however, the same was returned back with an endorsement 'Mark/Thumb impression requires attestation by Magistrate with seal." Thus, it was pleaded in the complaint that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioners filed an application under Section 245 of CrPC for their discharge on the ground that no offence under Section 138 of NI Act is made out and complaint is not maintainable. The Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application, hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the bank endorsement it is apparent that the cheque was not dishonoured. This fact has also been admitted in paragraph 4 of the complaint, therefore, the present complaint filed before the Magistrate is not maintainable.
:: 3 ::
M.Cr.C. No.9167/2021
(Smt. Meera Bai & Another vs. Shyam Singh Bhadoriya)
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents available on record.
5. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect 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."
6. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held that the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and to secure the ends of justice."
7. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that their powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
:: 4 ::
M.Cr.C. No.9167/2021
(Smt. Meera Bai & Another vs. Shyam Singh Bhadoriya)
8. It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial.
9. On perusal of record, it is apparent that the case pending before the Trial Court is at the stage of final arguments and complaint has been registered for the offence under Section 138 of NIT Act, i.e. a summon trial case and there is no provision of discharge in summon trial, therefore, provisions of Section 245 of CrPC are not attracted in the present case. Besides this, one more glaring fact apparent in the present case is that earlier the petitioners/accused had filed an application before the Trial Court for payment of amount through installments, wherefrom it is clear that amount in dispute is due against the petitioners.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances in totality along- with legal provisions, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition filed under Sections 482 of CrPC. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge pwn* Pawan Kumar 2021.02.27 11:51:21 +05'30'