K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J. ( 1 ) 1. Petitioner is the first accused in S. C. No 77 of 1984 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Bijapur. There are 17 accused in all in that case. On 13-2-86, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, bijapur, has framed two charges against the petitioner and the remaining 16 accused. The first charge is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and the second charge is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. Nearly one year 8 months after framing of the said charges against all the 17 accused in S. C. 77/84 that the first accused alone has filed this petition under Section 482 cr. P. C. for quashing the committal order dated 11-10-84 passed by the J. M. F. C. Basavan-Bagewadi in C. C. No. 205/84 ordering committal of that case to the court of Session as the offence under section 395 IPC alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of session. By the same order, the learned committal Magistrate has directed the petitioner and the remaining 16 accused to appear before the Sessions Court on 29-10-84. Pursuant to that order, all the 17 accused including the petitioner have appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 29-10-84 and participated in the proceedings of S. C. No. 77/84 till the above mentioned two charges were framed against them on 13-2-86 and even thereafter, ( 2 ) THE grievance now made by the petitioner is that since C. C. No. 205/84 was registered on the basis of a private complaint presented under Section 200 cr. P. C. by one Smt. Sangawwa (complainant) alleging that the 17 accused named in the complaint had committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 394, 395, 324, 506 (b) read with Section 149 IPC and since the offence under Section 395 ipc is exclusively triable by the Court of session, the learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr. P. C. and called upon the complainant to produce alt witnessess and examined them on oath and thereafter complied with the provisions of Section 208 Cr. P. C. and called upon the complainant to produce alt witnessess and examined them on oath and thereafter complied with the provisions of Section 208 Cr. P. C. and then committed the case to the Court of Session for the trial of the accused for the above mentioned offences and instead of doing so, the learned Magistrate had referred the complaint to the CPI, Basavan-Bagewadi for investigation and submission of report by order dated 19-2-83 and has then acted upon a charge-sheet filed by the CPI, basavan-Bagewadi on 24-3-84 for offences under Sections 447 and 395 IPC and has committing the case to the Court of session. ( 3 ) PETITIONER appears to have filed the present petition on the strength of a decision of this Court in Abdul Khader v mohammed Faizuddin (ILR 1987 Karnataka, 832) in which it is observed that in a case instituted on a private complaint, where the offences alleged are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, it is not only not permissible for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police as provided under Section 156 (3), or Section 202 but it is also obligatory on him to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath as provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr. P. C. before issuing process under Section 204. But, contrary view is expressed by this Court in nagansgouda v Kama/ax/ (ILR 1986 karnataka 1229) in which the first point considered is whether the Magistrate before taking action under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. directing issue of process to the accused on the basis of a complaint in which some of the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Session should have held an enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 202 Cr. P. C. It is held on that point that the Magistrate is at liberty either to take recourse only under Section 200 or Section 202 of the Cr. P. C. as he thinks fit and, therefore, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 cannot control section 200 Cr. P. C. It is held on that point that the Magistrate is at liberty either to take recourse only under Section 200 or Section 202 of the Cr. P. C. as he thinks fit and, therefore, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 cannot control section 200 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) IT is also held by this Court in sathyanarayana Kamath v Revannappa (ILR 1988 Karnataka 1817) that where the offence complained of is triable by court of Session, the Magistrate need not invariably take recourse to the proviso to sub-section i2) of Section 202 Cr. P. C. as he is certainly empowered to deal with the case by adopting the procedure laid down under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and take appropriate decision as required under section 203 or under sub-section (1) of Section 204 Cr. P. C. It is further held in that case that the principle laid down in ILR 1987 Karnataka 832 runs contrary to the one laid down by the Supreme court in Antulay v Nayak (AIR 1984 sc 719) to the effect that the Magistrate has got jurisdiction either to proceed under Section 200 or under Section 202 cr. P. C. in respect of a private complaint in which some of the offences alleged are exclusively triable by the Court of Session and, therefore, the ruling laid down in ILR 1987 Karnataka 832, cannot be considered to be good law. However, Sri. V. B. Ganachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted on the strength of another decision of this Court in Ramanatha v kusuma and State of Karnataka (ILR 1984 (2) Karnataka 1054) in which the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 202 (2) Cr. P. C. are considered and it is held that in case of private complaints relating to offences triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the trial Court has to examine all witnesses before taking a decision under Section 203 or 204 Cr. P. C. But, the short point that falls for determination in this petition is whether the j. M. F. C. Basavan-Bagewadi has committed any illegality in referring the complaint of Smt. Sangawwa to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and committing the case to the Court of Session. P. C. But, the short point that falls for determination in this petition is whether the j. M. F. C. Basavan-Bagewadi has committed any illegality in referring the complaint of Smt. Sangawwa to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and committing the case to the Court of Session. Bijapur and acting on the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigating into the matter under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. for offences under Sections 447 and 395 IPC against the petitioner and 16 other accused. ( 5 ) ON this point, there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court in Devarapalli laxminarayana Reddy and others v v. Narayann Reddy and others ( AIR 1976 sc 1672 ) in which it is held that in view of the first proviso to Sec. 202 (1) Cr. P. C. a Magistrate, who receives a complaint disclosing offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, is not debarred from sending the same to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. In view of this decision, there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner against the procedure adopted by the j. M. F. C. Basavan-Bagewadi in C. C. No. 205/84 in referring the private complaint of Smt. Sangawwa to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by order dated 19-2-83 and subsequently, committing the case to the Court of Session by acting on the final report or charge-sheet submitted by the police on 24-3-84 by order dated 11 -10-1984. ( 6 ) THERE is one other impediment in the way of the petitioner, ie. , the inordinate delay in assailing the procedure adopted by the J. M. F. C. Basavan-Bagewadi. It is noted in the Order-sheet dated 19-10-84 that all the 17 accused were present before Court on that day. After perusing the papers submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate has passed the Committal order and has further directed the accused to appear before the Sessions court on 29-10-84. As already mentioned above, all the 17 accused including the petitioner, who was the first accused, have appeared before the Sessions Court on 29-10-84 and have participated in the proceedings in S. C. No. 77/84 arising out of the Committal order of the Magistrate dated 11-10-84 till the framing of the above mentioned charges on 13-2-86. As already mentioned above, all the 17 accused including the petitioner, who was the first accused, have appeared before the Sessions Court on 29-10-84 and have participated in the proceedings in S. C. No. 77/84 arising out of the Committal order of the Magistrate dated 11-10-84 till the framing of the above mentioned charges on 13-2-86. A perusal of the Order-sheet in S. C. 77/84 would further go to show that after framing of charges on 13-2-86, the case was posted for trial on 6-3-86 and thereafter it is adjourned several times and it is one year 8 months after framing of charges that the petitioner has filed the present petition. Therefore, he is clearly guilty of laches. It is held in Aravindakshan and another v State of Kerala and another (1985 Cr. L. J. 1389) that the main purpose of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under the Criminal procedure Code is to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice otherwise in cases where no specific provision is available. A person who is seeking such a jurisdiction has undoubtedly to approach the court with clean hands and with equitable backgrounds. He has to come to court with an open mind for the purpose of making him eligible for such a relief. The High court may not be justified in invoking the inherent power in favour of a person who is known to have approached the court with a mala fide and fradulent background. It is held in Kailash Nath Lahiri v mis. Shanthi Lai Khusaldas and Bros. (1977 Cr. L. J. 1520) that it is open to the high Court in appropriate cases to dismiss the application on the ground that the applicant is guilty of laches or otherwise on the ground that no order is necessary to secure the ends of justice. ( 7 ) IN the case reported in Ram Chandra mishra v State of U. P. (1985 AII. L. J. 86), the Magistrate proceeded against a certain person under Section 319 Cr. P. C. Pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, the said person appeared before the Magistrate, the thereafter the Magistrate framed charge against that person. One year framing of the charge, the said person challenged the order passed by the magistrate to proceed against him under section 319 Cr. P. C. Pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, the said person appeared before the Magistrate, the thereafter the Magistrate framed charge against that person. One year framing of the charge, the said person challenged the order passed by the magistrate to proceed against him under section 319 Cr. P. C. On the said facts, it is held that it was not a fit case for interference as it was too late in the day for the person proceeded against under section 319 Cr. P. C. to approach the High court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and challenge the validity of the order and therefore, his petition is dismissed summarily. Therefore, I hold that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and want of bonafides on the part of the petitioner in filing the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 3 years after the Committal order and one year and 8 months after framing of charges by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) VIEWED from any angle, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .