SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U. C. Banerjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 1999, (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) 2265 of 1999). D/d. 6.12.1999.

Channaveere Gowda - Appellant

Versus

Sanne Gowda and others - Respondents

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Inherent power - Exercise of - Issuance of process - Quashing of - Reviewing the evidence of witnesses - High Court has tired to decide the matter as trial court assessing evidence - Not permissible within the jurisdiction conferred under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Which ought to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that otherwise there would be an abuse of process of court.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The complainant assist the order of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 quashing the order of the Magistrate issuing process. On the basis of an enquiry by the Investigating Officer on a final form being filed, the complainant filed the protest petition. The Magistrate treated the same as a complaint and after examining the complaint and the two witnesses, took cognizance and directed issuance of process. The accused persons moved the High Court under Section 482. The High Court by the impugned order reviewing the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant came to hold that they are not reliable and therefore the High Court interfered with the order of the Magistrate issuing process. It is this order which is being assailed in the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant - appellant herein contends that at this stage it was not permissible for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to assess the reliability of the evidence and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. We find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel. A bare look at the impugned order would indicate that the High Court has tried to decide the matter as the trial Court assessing the evidence which obviously is not permissible within the jurisdiction conferred under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which ought to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that otherwise there would be an abuse of the Court. In the aforesaid premise we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the Magistrate would proceed with the criminal proceedings as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal allowed.