RAJEEV GUPTA, J.

(1.) Arguments heard. Shri R.K. Khare, the learned Govt. Advocate, raises a preliminary objection about the maintainability of his petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Others v. Ramshri and Others.

(2.) Shri Kochar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply submitted that though in the petition the correctness and propriety of the order dt. 28.8.1992, passed by the Turd AddI. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.8 7/92 and order dt. 19.2.1992, passed by JudI. Magistrate, First Class, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No. 578/90, has been challenged, but, infact now the petitioner is challenging the propriety of initiating and continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner, only on inadmissible evidence. Petitioner, Sushil Kumar Sharma, has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gariyaband taking cognizance against the petitioner for offences under sections 411 and 414 of the I.P.C. The above order passed by JudI. Magistrate, First Class, Gariyaband was affirmed by Turd AddI. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr.R. No. 87/92.

(3.) Police Rajim of district Raipur filed charge-sheet against Piluram and Kumud Alka Sona for the offences under sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The above case was registered by Police Rajim on the report lodged by Smt. Kamlesh Tiwari, wife of K.C. Tiwari, on 15.3.1990. Though in this F.T.R. suspicion has been expressed by the informant against the petitioner and few others, but, no specific allegations have been made against the petitioner.

(4.) Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gariyaband, vide order dt. 17.2.1993 took cognizance against the petitioner, in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 190 Cr.P.C. From the above order of the Magistrate it appears that the material found sufficient by the Magistrate, for taking cognizance against the petitioner, consisted of only the mention of the petitioners name in the memorandum prepared u/s 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused Kumud Alka Sona. The learned Turd AddI. Sessions Judge, Raipur affmned the above order passed by the Magistrate vide order dt. 28.8.1992. From paras 3 and 6 of this order, it is found that the revisional court considered the above mention of the petitionerTs name in the memorandum of co-accused Kumud Alka Sona and the reference of petitioners name in the F.T.R., wherein suspicion was expressed by the informant, sufficient for taking cognizance against the petitioner.

(5.) Shri S.L. Kochar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the evidence, relied upon by the Magistrate for taking cognizance against the petitioner and considered sufficient by the revisional court for affirming the order of the Magistrate, is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used against the petitioner, at the trial. Shri Kochar further submitted that the observation of the revisional court in Para 3 of the order that some stolen property was seized from the possession of the petitioner is contrary to the record of the case.

(6.) On perusing the F.T.R. lodged by Smt. Kamlesh Tiwari, it is found that on the report only a vague suspicion was expressed by the informant against four persons including the petitioner. Police Rajim, during the course of investigation and after recording the statement of witnesses, did not find the available material sufficient for filing charge-sheet against any of the four persons, mentioned in the F.T.R. The only piece of evidence considered sufficient by the Magistrate for taking cognizance against the petitioner is the mention of the petitioners, name in the memorandum of co-accused Kumud Alka Sona, recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, to the effect that the petitioner joined Kumud Alka Sona in concealing the stolen property. Shri Khare, the learned Govt. Advocate, could not dispute the legal position, as contended by Shri Kochar the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the above evidence is clearly inadmissible and cannot be proved against the petitioner, at the trial.

(7.) Shri Khare, the learned Government Advocate, could not point out any other evidence, direct of indirect, against the petitioner, which may connect him with the offence either under section 411 or 414 T.P.C.

(8.) On the evidence, referred to above, the chances of conviction of the petitioner either for the offence under section 411 or 414 T.P.C. are bleak. On the above evidence allowing the proceedings, initiated by the Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 190 Cr.P.C., would be nothing but abuse of process of the Court. On the above discussion of the material available on record against the petitioner, this Court finds that the present is the rarest of rare case, wherein this Court should exercise its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which are to be used very sparingly, in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

(9.) For the foregoing reasons, this petition filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in Case No. 578/90, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Raipur are quashed. The trial Magistrate shall proceed with the case against the other accused persons according to law. Petition allowed.