Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— S. 482 — Inherent jurisdiction of High Court — When to be exercised — Held, should be exercised in extreme exceptions — Criminal complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the appellants had refused to execute the written agreement transferring the plot in his favour for which he had already paid part consideration pursuant to an oral agreement — Cognizance under Ss. 406, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC taken by the Magistrate — High Court by the impugned order dismissing appellants' petition for quashing the cognizance — Held, version of the complainant was self-contradictory since at one place he had stated that the oral agreement to sell took place in July 2002, while at the other he alleged that he started paying consideration amount between 15-7-2000 and 15-12-2002 — No prima facie case was made out against the appellants involving them in the commission of alleged offences — Even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust — Neither can any guilty intention be attributed to them nor can there possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant — Averments of the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would amount to civil liability inter se the parties and not criminal liability — Hence, cognizance taken by the Magistrate was clearly an abuse of the process of court warranting interference in the interest of justice — Instant case was a case of extreme exception where the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction and power to set aside the unwarranted and unjustified order of the Magistrate — Impugned order quashed, (2006) 6 SCC 669