B. C. PATNAIK. J. ( 1 ) - Both these revisions have been filed by two of the accused persons in a complaint case, namely ICC Case No. 32 of 1983 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ganjam, Berhampur praying for quashing the order of the learned. Magistrate taking cognizance as against them. Accused No. 1 in the complaint case is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No: -146 of 1984 and accused No. 3 in the complaint case is the petitioner in the other revision. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed a complaint petition on 22-4-1983 against six accused persons alleging therein that accused No. 1 married her in the year 1960 without disclosing that he has earlier married and his first wife was still living. The further averment in the complaint is that subsequent to the marriage, between accused No. 1 and the complainer, they lived as husband and wife and were blessed with three children and, during that period on the persuasions of accused No. 1, she sold several gold ornament and invested the amount for purchasing some immovable property. After purchase of such property, accused No. 1 proposed that the property should be disposed of at a premium to which the complainant also agreed. It was further revealed by accused No. 1 that for executing sale deeds, the complainant might not go to the office of the Sub-Registrar and instead might execute a power-of attorney in favour of accused No. 2 and accordingly the complainant executed General Power-of-Attorney in favour of accused No. 2. On account of accused No. 1 not disclosing the factum of earlier marriage to the complainant, some misunderstandings arose and on 17-12-1981, accused No. 1 left the company of the complainant and did not visit again. The complainant could later on know that accused. Nos. 1 and 2 with the support of accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 brought three documents No. 2998/82, 2999/82 and 3000/83 into existence purporting those to be three sale deeds in respect of three plots of land and in those sale deeds the signatures of the complainant had been forged and the documents were presented for registration by accused No. 2 knowing fully well that the same were Dot genuine. Accused No. 4 was the scribe of the said documents and accused Nos. Accused No. 4 was the scribe of the said documents and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were the two attesting witnesses who had assisted in preparation of the said false documents. Coming to know of the aforesaid facts, the complainant cancelled tile General Power-of-Attorney executed by her in favour of accused No. 2 and also, made a publication, to that effect in the daily newspaper. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused persons created several documents and gilt them registered in two batches purporting to transfer the property belonging to the complainant in favour of accused No. 1 and one document was purported to have been executed in favour of accused No. 3, who is the son of accused no. 1 through his first wife. He was asserted that none of the documents were executed by the compliant and her signatures had been forged by the accused persons. On these allegations it was prayed that cognisance be taken against the accused persons under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant on the date of filling on 22-4-1983. After a-plying his mind to the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant made in her initial statement, the Magistrate took cognisance under sections 465, 468 and 424, Indian Penal Code, and summoned the accused persons. It is this order of the learned Magistrate dated, 22-4-1983 which is being assailed in both these revisions and a never has been made to Quash the order of cognisance against the petitioners by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4 ) MR. B. M. Patnaik, the learned counsel appearing for (he petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1934 raises two contentions in support of his prayer for quashing the cognisance. Firstly he submits that the dispute disclosed in the complaint petition is essentially of a civil nature and. therefore, the criminal proceeding should be quashed particularly when the dispute is one between the husband and the wife. Firstly he submits that the dispute disclosed in the complaint petition is essentially of a civil nature and. therefore, the criminal proceeding should be quashed particularly when the dispute is one between the husband and the wife. He then urges that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken in entirety yet the offence for which cognisance has been taken are not established and, therefore, it would be a fit case for quashing the cognisance by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. Mr. Mund, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the other revision, contends that neither in the complaint petition nor in the initial statement of the complainant, there has been any allegation against accused No. 3 and therefore, the order of the Magistrate taking cognisance so far as accused No. 3 is concerned must be quashed. Mr. Ray, the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 1, on the other band, contends that the allegations being quite serious in nature and prima facie having established the offence of forgery as well as cheating, the criminal proceeding must be permitted to continue and this Court should not interfere in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. According to Mr. Ray, the learned counsel for the complainant, since the Magistrate has issued summons by applying his mind to the materials on record, it would be appropriate that the complainant sbould be given an opportunity to establish her case by leading evidence. ( 5 ) SECTION 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a verbatim reproduction of the corresponding provision in section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Since the High Court has jurisdiction over all criminal courts subordinate to it, in course of administration of justice, the Court comes accross cases and circumstances which are not covered by the express provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and yet feels it that justice has to be done. No Legislature can foresee all events add circumstances and no rule can regulate for all times to come. Every court in the absence of express provision in the Code is deceived to possess powers necessary to do the right and undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. No Legislature can foresee all events add circumstances and no rule can regulate for all times to come. Every court in the absence of express provision in the Code is deceived to possess powers necessary to do the right and undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. The High Court in addition to the same, because of its overall jurisdiction over all criminal courts, has further to see that subordinate criminal courts should not abuse the process of court and should act in manner so as to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power of that High Court is exercised for the afore mentioned purposes. It is not in every case of an error committed by a lower criminal court that the High Court would interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction; it is only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that there has been an a house of the process of Court be there has been gross miscarriage of justice, the High Court would, be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. That is why, the Supreme Court bas said in several cases that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be very cautiously and sparingly, used. The circumstances in which and the parameters within which such power is exercised vis-a-vis an order of cognisance by a criminal court or framing of charge by the criminal court at the in stage has been considered by the Supreme Court and this Court in large number or cases. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajt Rao Scindia and anr. etc. Sombhajirao Chandrajirao Angro and ors. etc. 1, it was observed by the Supreme Court: The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. ( 6 ) APPLYING the aforesaid tests to the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as in the initial statement of the complainant, I find that the ingredients of the offence of cheating within the meaning of section 420, Indian Penal Code, have not at all been satisfied. In order to bring a case within the habit of section 420, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that there should be a direct contention between the false representation and the delivery of the property or the doing of something by the person deceived. It is further necessary that the act or the omission complained of should cause or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person or properly. In order that a person can be convicted under section 420, it has to be established that not only that he has chased someone but also that by doing so he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver the said property to cotora. There must be a deception which must precede the fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The allegations against the accused No. 1 who happens to be the husband of the complainant in this regard are that he married the complainant by falsely representing that his first wife had been divorced. This would not constitute the offence of cheating. All subsequent allegations made in the complaint petition do not establish the offence of cheating. In this view of the matter, the order taking cognisance against the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1984 under section 420, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. This would not constitute the offence of cheating. All subsequent allegations made in the complaint petition do not establish the offence of cheating. In this view of the matter, the order taking cognisance against the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1984 under section 420, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. ( 7 ) COMING now to the offence under section 468, Indian Penal Code, the said offence consists of commission of forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The essential ingredients constituting the offence under section 468, Indian Penal Code, are that the document in question is a forged document; that the accused forged the same and in forging he intended that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The entire averments in the Complaint petition do not establish the third ingredient referred to above and, therefore, on the materials on record, it has to be held that even a prima facie case attracting the provision of section 468, Indian Penal Code, has not been established. Consequently, the order taking cognizance under section 408, Indian Penal Code, so far as accused No. 1 is concerned must be quashed. ( 8 ) COMING to the offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code, however, I find sufficient materials on record. To constitute the offence of forgery, the document must be a false one and must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently as contemplated by one of the three modes described in section 454, Indian Penal Code, and it must have been made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or with intent to commit fraud, as required under section 463, Indian Penal Code In other, words, forgery consists of making a false document with the intention of causing damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or to cause any person to enter any express or implied contract or with the intent to commit fraud or fraud may be committed. The allegations made in the complaint petition as well as in the initial, statement of the complainant clearly indicate that the accused made the documents in question putting the false signatures of the complainant with the intention that the complainant would lose title over the property and the accused know fully that the said documents had not been executed by the complainant and ret with the connivance of other accused persons got the same registered by utilising the power-of-attorney in favour of accused No. 2. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no justifiable ground to quash the cognisance so far as the offence under section 465. Indian Penal Code, is concerned and the said prayer of accused No. 1 must be rejected. ( 9 ) SO far as accused No. 3 is concerned who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 353 of 1983, I find that the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the associations of the complainant in her initial statement do not make out any offence either under section 420, or under section 465 or under section 468, Indian Penal Code, as against the said accused No. 3. The only assertion is that one, of the documents was in favour of the said accused No. 3. That by itself would not constitute any of the offences for which cognisance has been taken Consequently, the order of cognisance So far as accused Ramesh Chandra Das is concerned must be quashed and is hereby quashed. ( 10 ) IN the net result, therefore, the order of cognisance so far as the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 353 of 1983 is concerned is quashed in entirety and the said Criminal Revision is allowed in full. So far as the order of cognisance against the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1984 is concerned, the cognisance under sections 420 and 468, Indian Penal Code, is quashed, but the cognisance under section 465, Indian Penal Code, as against the said petitioner, is sustained. Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1984 is accordingly allowed in part. Order accordingly. . .