JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Accused is the Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge framed against him by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. 2. The charge against the accused read as follows: That you on 14-10-81 and 19-10-81 cheated the complainant Khusiram Sharma by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 23,500/- to you and which was the cash of complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420, I.P.C. and within my cog. and I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charges is read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. 3. The complainant alleged in the complaint petition filed on 7-3-1984 that he paid Rs. 23,500/- to the accused in summer days of the year 1981 to enable him to purchase best jersy cows from Cuttack. After some days, the complainant approached the accused to get back the amount but the accused played hide and seek. On 18-10-81, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 7,000/- drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank putting a date 19-10-81 in favour of complainant. The complainant deposited the cheque with United Bank of India for collection but Indian Overseas Bank intimated to the effect that there is no money in the account of the accused to honour the cheque. The complainant intimated the same to the accused and also wrote many letters. The accused also sent telegram and letters but ultimately the accused did not pay the whole amount in addition to the cheque amount. In the initial deposition of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate, the complainant stated as follows: I complain against accused Pradeep Kumar Deo and took money in 1981 from me to purchase cow. When I asked for money, he gave me cheque on 18-10-1981. But that cheque was dishonoured by the bank. Then I asked for money but he did not give me the money. He cheated me by granting a false cheque. 4. Taking cognizance the learned Magistrate summoned him to appear. Non-appearance compelled the trial court to issue non Bailable Warrant of Arrest. The same could not be executed by the Police for a long time and at last the accused appeared on 1-10-1985 which was not a date fixed. He cheated me by granting a false cheque. 4. Taking cognizance the learned Magistrate summoned him to appear. Non-appearance compelled the trial court to issue non Bailable Warrant of Arrest. The same could not be executed by the Police for a long time and at last the accused appeared on 1-10-1985 which was not a date fixed. Releasing the accused on bail, the learned Magistrate allowed him to be represented for each day. The complainant was examined and cross-examined before charge as P.W. 1 on 9-1-1986 and P.W. 2 was examined and cross-examined before charge on 21-1-1986 when the case was posted to 30th January, 1986 for consideration of framing charge. On the date fixed after giving opportunity to the accused of being heard, charge was framed. The order of 30-1-1986 reads as follows: Accused is represented for to-day which is allowed. Charge u/s 420, I.P.C. is framed against the accused. The charge is read over and explained, the representing Lawyer to which he pleads not guilty and wants to be tried. Call on 20-2-86 for examination after charge. Complainant to produce witnesses. Accused as before. From 20-2-1986, the case was being adjourned from day today till order of stay was made by this Court on 28-4-1986. 5. I find from the order sheet that after appearance of the accused, the case is being dealt with casually and adjournments are being granted on the mere asking of it. I am certain that a little more seriousness would reinforce the confidence of litigants in the process of law courts and the accused persons shall prefer to get acquitted on the evidence adduced than invoking the discretionary inherent jurisdiction of this Court to be objected in many cases since the power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is to be sparingly used in a most deserving case and is not to be used as a substitute for revisional or appellate power. 6. Since the inherent power is to be sparingly used in just cases only, I am required to keep the conduct of the accused in the proceeding and the prejudice that would be caused to him in my mind while considering the question of exercising the inherent power in his favour. 6. Since the inherent power is to be sparingly used in just cases only, I am required to keep the conduct of the accused in the proceeding and the prejudice that would be caused to him in my mind while considering the question of exercising the inherent power in his favour. It is also to be remembered that intention of the Legislation in the Code of Criminal Procedure as reflected in Sections 244 and 245, Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a Criminal Prosecution on cognizance being taken shall informally be concluded either in acquittal or conviction of the accused unless a strong case is made out for intervention in between. That is why it has been provided that in cases of discharge of an accused a reasoned judicial order is to be passed and in case of framing a charge no reason is required to be recorded. 7. The order sheet does not disclose that the accused represented by a Lawyer pressed for discharge on 30-1-1986 when the materials were considered for framing charge. The accused took the matter easy for a few more dates to which the case was fixed and on 15-3-1986 only he rose from slumber to apply for a certified copy which was made ready on the same day. Even receiving the copy on the same day he acted casually to file the petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction on 7-4-1986 only. This casual conduct of the accused would not have stood on the path of the accused in case, he could have made out case of no material against him, bias or prejudice of the learned Magistrate or unreasonableness of the learned Magistrate to frame the charge in spite of pointing out to him that framing of charge is not called for in the case. 8. Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that all the materials available would not be sufficient for conviction of the accused and therefore, the charge framed should be quashed. He relied upon a decision of this Court reported in M.S. Jaggi v. R.S. Das, Manager, Spancer and Co. 62 (1986) C.L.T. 129, which is a case of dishonour of cheque and the accused convicted by both the forums below was acquitted in this Court in exercise of revisional power. He relied upon the decision reported Hiralal Mundra Vs. He relied upon a decision of this Court reported in M.S. Jaggi v. R.S. Das, Manager, Spancer and Co. 62 (1986) C.L.T. 129, which is a case of dishonour of cheque and the accused convicted by both the forums below was acquitted in this Court in exercise of revisional power. He relied upon the decision reported Hiralal Mundra Vs. Asok Kumar Rasiklal and Company, where a charge u/s 420, I.P.C. was quashed. Mr. Misra put strong reliance on a case reported in G.K. Mohanty v. Pratap Kishore Das 62 (1986) C.L.T. 292, where a charge u/s 420, I.P.C. in a court of dishonour of a cheque was quashed. All the three decisions of this Court are based on the facts and the circumstances of those cases and there can be no quarrel over the principles on which they are based. 9. Since Mr. Misra submitted that the materials on record would not lead to a reasonable view that the ingredients of Section 420, I.P.C. are not satisfied, I examined the materials placed before me. Discussion of the same is likely to prejudice the accused. Therefore, without elaborating the same, I can state this much that a strong suspicion arises about the criminal intention of the Appellant and the framing of the charge cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10. Coming to the question of prejudice, I find that the case in the stage of recording evidence and the vigilance of the parties and the learned Magistrate with anxiety to speedily dispose of the same would lead to the conclusion of the trial within a few months in the maximum. The learned Magistrate very fairly has allowed the representation and I am sure the same shall be continued unless the personal appearance would be absolutely necessary either on facts or on law. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the accused in case there is no interference with the order. 11. In the conclusion, although, I called for the records and issued notice on admission to the complainant who has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice, I am not inclined to admit the petition for further consideration since I have heard Mr. P.K. Misra at length. The application is dismissed. Send back the records forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed