JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.: The facts giving rise to the present petition are that Smt. Leela Samuel, Ms. Uppal Dass and Smt Shanti Paul submitted a complaint in writing against the present petitioner before S.D.M., Kangra, on 19.4.1993 wherein it has been complained that the present petitioner had cheated and defrauded the complainants for an amount of Rupees 13000/- to 14,000/- each on the pretext of agreement to sell land owned by A.D.T.A. and the present petitioner issued bogus receipts only and did not give any agreement to sell, but on the contrary, he obtained signatures of complainants on blank papers. It was also complained that when the, present petitioner was asked to deliver the agreement of land, he threatened with dire consequences and said that he would call the Gundas from Amritsar and he would throw the petitioners out from their residence. This complaint was inquired into by S.D. M., Kangra. 2. S.D.M., Kangra on 27.8.1993 submitted a complaint under Sections 420,465,467,471,477-A read with Section 34 IPC before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra forwarded the original complaint along with the documents in original to S.H.O., Police Station, Kangra under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for registration of the case and investigation in accordance with law. 3. The aforesaid ladies had preferred the complaint before the S.D.M. against the present petitioner alone who was holding general power of attorney for Chairman, A.D.T.A., Dr. A.C.Lal. The complaint before the S.D.J.M. was filed against the present petitioner along with Dr. A.C. Lal. 4. The police, after investigation, submitted the challan before the S.D.J.M. under Sections 420,406,465,467,477-A IPC against the present petitioner alone. 5. The aforesaid challan was presented before the Court on 20.5.1995 and on 6.6.1995 the learned Magistrate, after perusing the office report, ordered for be registration of the case and directed to issue summons to the accused for 26.9.1995 along with notice to the surety with the direction to produce the accused on the date fixed (Annexure P-l). 6. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred with the prayer that the order of summoning the petitioner, as an accused, (Ann.P-l) as also the case FIR No.341/1993 registered by the police under Sections 420,465,467,406,477-A IPC at Police Station, Kangra be ordered to be quashed. 7. The respondents contested the present petition. 8. 6. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred with the prayer that the order of summoning the petitioner, as an accused, (Ann.P-l) as also the case FIR No.341/1993 registered by the police under Sections 420,465,467,406,477-A IPC at Police Station, Kangra be ordered to be quashed. 7. The respondents contested the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the relevant record has been minutely scrutinised. 9. The complaint submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kangra before the S.D.J.M., Kangra, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered, runs as under: "That a complaint was received in the office of undersigned of Smt. Leela Samuel Miss Uppal Dass and Smt. Santi Paul, all are the employees of St. Hildas Girls School, Kangra (copy enclosed). It was reported that Sh. A.K. Soloman holding the General Power of Attorney of Amritsar Diocesan Trust. Association, cheated and defrauded them for amount of Rs. 13000/- to Rs. 14000/- each on the pretext of sale of some of the residential plots to them out of the land belonging to Amritsar Diocesan Trust, Arsocial a registered Society, situate in Misson Compound at Kangra. The amount was obtained as a consideration for the sale of the plots from the complainants, However, Sh. A.K. Soloman though received the payment as consideration of sale of the plots, however, he issued bogus receipts to all the three complainants, showing the amount received by him as "Donation" for allotment of the plot. The complainants were never informed that they have to pay the sale consideration in the form of donation nor legally it can be obtained either by Sh. A.K. Soloman or his master Anand Chand Lal. Moreover, on my enquiry, I have found that Anand Cnandu Lal has not been declared to be the lawful Chairman of the Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, One of the other contenders to be the Chairman of the said Registered Society, has filed a case which is pending for decision before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Moreover, on my enquiry, I have found that Anand Cnandu Lal has not been declared to be the lawful Chairman of the Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, One of the other contenders to be the Chairman of the said Registered Society, has filed a case which is pending for decision before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Both A.K. Soloman and Anand Chandu Lal, know that Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stay order dated 23.11.1992, wherein it has been specifically ordered by the Honble High Court that the appellants and all the respondents would not effect any alienation of any property without the permission of the Court dispute (it should read despite) these orders, both A.K. Soloman and Anand Chandu Lal by referring the fact that they are not competent to sell or lease out any property of ADTA registered Society at Kangra or anywhere else by deceitful means, obtained amount of lease/sale money in the form of donations Anand Chandu Lal is pretending himself as the Chairman of ADTA. This fact is yet to be decided by the Court The General Power of Attorney issued by Anand Chandu Lal in favour of his associate A.K. Soloman dated 10.9.1992 is also a personal Power of Attorney and it is not executed on behalf the ADTA Regd. Society. Anand Chandu Lal has no authority to execute any such General Power of Attorney on behalf of a Regd. Society. The agreements executed by Shri A.K. Soloman after the filing of the complaint by the complainants, also shows his malafides. He has prepared these false documents for which ADTA Regd. Society has not executed any General power of Attorney in his favour. It is clear case of cheating, preparing forged documents, forgery of valuable securities i.e. the lease agreements and bogus payment receipt showing sale/lease consideration as donation amount, using as genuine, the forged documents and falsification of accounts. He has prepared these false documents for which ADTA Regd. Society has not executed any General power of Attorney in his favour. It is clear case of cheating, preparing forged documents, forgery of valuable securities i.e. the lease agreements and bogus payment receipt showing sale/lease consideration as donation amount, using as genuine, the forged documents and falsification of accounts. The action of both the accused, thus, clearly falls under Sections 420,465,467,471,477-A read with Section 34 IPC and hence this complaint is forwarded for necessary legal action, as the accused are still indulging such kinds of deals with some other residents of Kangra." The report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, submitted before the Judicial Magistrate by the police recorded that the entire amount paid by the ladies complainants paid back to them during inquiry by the S.D.M. c- 25.5.1993. It was also reported that the present petitioner has temporarily embezzled an amount of Rs. 37,500/- received form these ladies. 10. The main base of the complaint filed by the S.D.O. (Civil), Kangra rests upon the following facts : - (i) Shri A.K. Soloman holding General Power of Attorney for Chainman, ADTA cheated and defrauded the ladies for the amount, they had paid; (ii) the amount paid was as a consideration for the sale of the plots by those ladies complainants to Shri A.K. Soloman, who though received consideration of sale of plots, however, issued bogus receipts to all the complainants showing the amount received by him as donation for allotment of plots, as according to complainants, they were never informed that they had to pay sale consideration in the form of donation; (iii) Anand Chandu Lal had not been declared to be the lawful Chairman of Amritsar Dioceason Trust Association; (iv) both A.K. Soloman and Anand Chandu Lai knew that Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court had issued a stay order dated 23.11.1992 wherein it had been specifically ordered by the Honble High Court that the appellants and all the respondents would not effect any alienation of any property without the permission of the Court and, therefore, both A.K; Soloman and Anand Chandu Lal, by referring the fact that they were not competent to sell or alienate any property of ADTA at Kangra or anywhere else, obtained by deceitful means, money in the form of donation. The police, during investigation, has taken into possession the Photostat copies of the deed of agreements executed by the present petitioner with Smt. Shanti Paul, Ms. M.Uppal Dass and also took into possession the original deed executed by the petitioner with Leela Samuel. -All these deeds have been signed by the three ladies individually. The consideration price of Rs. 12,500/- mentioned in each deed has been recorded as donations to the ADTA; through the Property Manager and Attorney, the present petitioner. The Photostat copies of the receipts given to the three ladies were also taken into possession during investigation, which clearly recorded that the aforesaid amount was received on account of donation for allotment of residential plots. 11. The general owner of attorney executed by Dr. Anand Chandu Lal, describing himself as Chairman, ADTA (Regd.) was also taken into possession by the police during investigation, which also formed part of the documents filed with the challan. 12. Some litigation is pending before the High Court of punjab and Haryans and in that litigation, the following order was passed by the Honble Judge on 23.11.1992: "Mr. Kaushal Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has at the very outset submitted that his clients do not have any intention to sell any pan of the property in dispute. Consequently the order restraining the appellants from alienating the disputed property is confirmed to this extent that no part of the Church Property would be sold. As regards the creation of lease whatever lease has been created in the past would continue to remain in operation. If the lease period of any such property has expired or is due to expire, the same would not further be leased out without seeking the permission of this Court. If any lease is to be created for any other property the appellants would seek the permission of this Court for creation of lease. This order would be applicable even to those respondents who are not present today they would not effect any alienation without the permission of this Court This order, however, would not mean that under the existing leases the appellants or other person who have created lease would not be entitled to recover lease money through the process of the Court. With these observations the application is disposed of. The hearing of the appeal be also expedited. With these observations the application is disposed of. The hearing of the appeal be also expedited. The copy of the order filed with the challan does not give in detail the particulars of the parties involved in that order. However, vide order dated 2.9.1992, notice of application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC was issued, which order reads as under: "This application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed for issuing a restraint order against the appellants and respondents No. l 1,24,34,38,41,42,46,51,52,55,57 and 67. Notices be issued to the aforementioned persons for 25.9.1992. In the meanwhile, they are restrained from alienating the suit properties. Respondent Nos.39 and 40 are dead." From the certified copy of the aforesaid order filed with the challan, against, the detail of the parties has, not been given so as to come to the conclusion that the present petitioner and Dr. A.C. Lal were also the parties in those proceedings. 13. In the present proceedings, Annexure P-3 has been filed, which is the copy of the order passed by the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 4.8.1995, in a Contempt Petition No.727/1994. This Contempt" petition was filed for violation of the order of the Court dated 23.11.1992 passed in RFA 2567/1992. Those orders passed in RFA.2567/1992 have already been reproduced hereinabove. In Annexure 3, the contempt petition was filed against the present petitioner and Dr. A.C.Lal. The relevant portion of the order passed on August 4,1995, runs as under: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was moved by the respondents herein seeking a restraint order against the petitioner herein and some of the respondents as noticed above. This application was granted in terms of the order clearly goes to show that these was no restraint order issued against the respondents herein who are also some of the respondents in the appeal. Once it is shown that there was no restraint order issued against the present respondents, it cannot be said that they violated the order of injunction. In view of the above situation, this contempt petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged." 14. Once it is shown that there was no restraint order issued against the present respondents, it cannot be said that they violated the order of injunction. In view of the above situation, this contempt petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged." 14. Thus, from the certified copies of the judicial orders, it stood established that no order of stay against the present petitioner and Dr. A.C.Lal has been passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid litigation, but on the other hand, the Investigating Officer, in the challan filed against the present petitioner very clearly mentioned that the present petitioner and Dr.A.C- Lal had been restrained by a stay order passed by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, on the other hand, as reflected above, the facts are quite contrary. So, it cannot be said that any order passed against the petitioner and Dr.A.C. Lal in the proceedings pending before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court have been violated by them. In case it is so, documents to that effect are not forming part of the challan. Otherwise also, in case of any violation of any Court order, that Court passing such order, has ample power to proceed for the contempt of the order against the defaulters. 15. There is no doubt that the ladies, in their complaints, preferred before .he S.D.O. (Civil), Kangra had alleged that their signatures were obtained on blank papers. The S.D.M made a detailed inquiry and thereafter submitted a complaint before the S.D J.M. The complaint has been referred above in detail. There is no allegation made in the complaint by the S.D.M. that he came to the conclusion, after inquiry, that the petitioner obtained the signatures of those ladies-complainants on blank papers. The complaints contain allegations on some other counts, referred to earlier. 16. Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with the inherent powers of the High Court These powers can be made use of in order to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Here is a case, on the basis of the facts discussed above, where the invoking of the inherent power, is called for. 17. Here is a case, on the basis of the facts discussed above, where the invoking of the inherent power, is called for. 17. It may not be out of place to mention here that the deeds of agreement bearing the signatures of the complainant-ladies clearly recorded the consideration price to be taken as donation. The S.D.O. (Civil), after inquiry, never came to the conclusion that the signatures on the deeds of agreements, of the complainant ladies were taken on blank papers. It has also come on record that during investigation, no stay order, as alleged by the investigating officer against the present petitioner and Dr. Anand Chandu Lal has been passed by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The certified copies of orders reveal an altogether different picture. 18- An interesting fact which is revealed from the challan filed against the present petitioner has been that the other alleged defaulter Dr. A.C. Chandu has not been selected for prosecution in the present proceedings, though investigating officer came to the conclusion that he was not the Chairman of ADTA and that been stayed by an order of the Court not to transfer the property in any manner. This aspect of the matter definitely reflects the manner the investigating officer has behaved in this case. According to complaint filed by the S.D.O, (Civil), Kangra, Dr. A.C. Lal was also accused of committing the alleged criminal offence, as according to complainants, Dr.A.C. Lai had not been declared to be the lawful Chairman of the ADTA and as such, he had no authority to issue a general power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner. This aspect of the matter also cannot be ignored while appreciating the case of the petitioner. 19. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the criminal liability of the petitioner is not at all reflected from the challan and the documents filed therewith. At the maximum, it could be celled a civil liability and the rights of the parties were already subjudice in some litigation pending in Punjab That being so, the present petition is accepted and as a consequence thereof, the criminal proceeding; pending before me Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra against the present petitioner, along with the order dated 6.6.1993 Annexure P-l, are quashed. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.