JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Choube, counsel for the applicants, Mr. D. B. Yengal, APP for respondent no. 1 and Mr. F. T. Mirza for respondent no. 2. 2. By this application, the applicants have prayed for to quash the F.I.R. No. M-1/2010, dated 16.06.2010 and also to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case no.683/2009 and the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 337/2010 and further prayed to discharge from the said case. 3. It is the case of the applicant that one Narayan Damdu Parise the father of the non-applicant no. 2 had filed a criminal complaint case no. 598/2007 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal alleging offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against Padamchand Mangilal Bafna and his two sons. It is the case of the applicant that Shrawan Narayan Parise who had gone to the field owned by Mr. Padamchand Mangilal Bafna about 6-7 years ago and received an electric shock from the motor pump and expired on the spot. In respect of that incident, Mr. Narayan Damdu Parise lodged a report against the Padamchand Mangilal Bafna which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 207/1999, which was dismissed in default, as the complainant remained absent. The complainant had tried to restore the complaint, at that time, Mr. Padamchand Mangilal Bafna had assured to the complainant Mr. Narayan Damdu Parise that he would pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the complaint should not be restored, but the amount was not paid by Mr. Padamchand Mangilal Bafna as assured to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report at Yavatmal Police Station but police refused to take action on the ground that it is non-cognizable offence, thus, criminal complaint case no. 598/2007 was filed for alleged offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, in which process was issued against accused persons. In that complaint proceedings, Mr. Narayan Damdu Parise filed a pursis dated 12.06.2009, informing the Court that the matter is settled between the parties and sought to withdraw the complaint. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 12.06.2009 and allowed the complainant Mr. Narayan Damdu Parise to withdraw the complaint on or about 12.06.2009. 4. Thereafter, Dilip Narayan Parise (son of complainant Narayan Damdu Parise) lodged criminal complaint case no. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 12.06.2009 and allowed the complainant Mr. Narayan Damdu Parise to withdraw the complaint on or about 12.06.2009. 4. Thereafter, Dilip Narayan Parise (son of complainant Narayan Damdu Parise) lodged criminal complaint case no. 683/2009 on 21.11.2009 i.e. after about five months after the criminal complaint case was withdrawn by his father against the present applicants and six others under Section 417, 427, 120-B, 109 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and therein reiterated that on 29.05.2008, while his brother, Shrawan had been to mouza Parwa in a tank situated near the agricultural field of Mr. Padamchand Bafna, wherein a motor pump was installed by Mr. Padamchand Bafna to irrigate his own land and Shrawan received a shock and expired on the spot. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken against Bafna and it is further alleged by the complainant, Mr. Dilip Narayan Parise that this information of not taking cognizance against Mr. Padamchand Bafna, was within the knowledge of the accused no. 2, Bhimrao Maroti Avathare, upon whose guidance, a criminal complaint case no. 207/1999, was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal, which was dismissed for absence of the complainant on 20.03.2001. Thereafter, it is alleged by the Dilip Narayan Parise in criminal complaint case no. 683/2009, that on 12.07.2006 while case for compensation for defamation was filed by Padamchand Bafna against some of the accused persons which came to be withdrawn after accused persons tendered unconditional apology. Thereafter, it appears that for alleged offence of cheating by father of the complainant, the complainant sought action against the accused persons and therefore learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Yavatmal sent the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code and to report. Pursuant to investigation as directed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Yavatmal, the charge-sheet came to be filed against present applicants. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the elements of the offence of cheating are absent. Further more the allegations did not disclose offences punishable under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code as also Section 120-B and 109 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. That the Investigation Officer chose to file final report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 427 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further more the allegations did not disclose offences punishable under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code as also Section 120-B and 109 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. That the Investigation Officer chose to file final report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 427 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the charge-sheet was filed against the present applicants-accused without conducting proper investigation. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the complaint in the present case is vexatious and filed in order to harass the applicants, and therefore, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed and applicants are entitled for discharge. 6. This application is opposed by learned advocate appearing for the non-applicant as also APP on the ground that the learned Magistrate concerned issued direction for investigation to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the concerned Investigation Officer was directed to submit a report under Section 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, depending on the nature of material collected during the investigation. The F.I.R. was registered as M-1/2010, on 16.06.2010, thus, cognizance was taken when investigation was undertaken. In that criminal complaint case no. 683/2009, final report was filed on 27/07/2010 under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, thus, it is now criminal case at post cognizance stage since learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal, took the cognizance of the case registered as 337/2010 on 14.06.2011. The applicants have also received summons after the learned trial Magistrate took the cognizance of the case. It is also submitted that the earlier complainant Narayan Damdu Parise listed as one of the witness who was in fact present when spot of incident was pointed out by him. 7. Under these circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the non-applicants that the inherent powers under Section 482 ought not to be invoked. The accused in this case have alternative efficacious remedy to approach the learned trial Magistrate with plea for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Magistrate may, after considering the entire police report and documents submitted and after hearing the parties, decide as to whether there is ground to proceed further. The learned trial Magistrate can also consider whether the charge is groundless. The learned trial Magistrate may, after considering the entire police report and documents submitted and after hearing the parties, decide as to whether there is ground to proceed further. The learned trial Magistrate can also consider whether the charge is groundless. The applicants can pray for their discharge from the case pending before the learned trial Magistrate. 8. Learned advocate for the applicant contended in view of the DhariwalTobacco Products Limited and others Versus State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 806, that powers of the High Court can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Section 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to learned advocate for the applicants, that although Magistrate can exercise power to discharge the accused from the case on the ground that charge is groundless, the accused are not prevented from approaching the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceedings quashed when no offence has been made out against them. The Apex Court in DhariwalTobacco Products Limited and others Versus State of Maharashtra and another concluded after making reference of settled legal position that inherent power under Section 482 can be invoked by the accused in the appropriate case in respect of other facts. 9. Considering the nature of allegations, although it is alleged that complainant had earlier moved for withdrawal of the proceedings and the proceedings were closed and it appears subsequently that the complaint was filed for different accusations under Section 417, 427, 120-B, 109 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. In respect of the allegations, the learned Magistrate had ordered the investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was also filed. It is settled legal position that powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised sparingly with caution so as to avoid protraction of proceedings, however, it is open for the applicants to move the learned trial Magistrate with their application for discharge and adduce material in support of the plea of discharge. It is settled legal position that powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised sparingly with caution so as to avoid protraction of proceedings, however, it is open for the applicants to move the learned trial Magistrate with their application for discharge and adduce material in support of the plea of discharge. It would be an alternative efficacious remedy as the learned trial Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 239 of Code of Criminal, can consider the police report and the plea of the accused, and after an opportunity of hearing if the learned trial Magistrate consider the charge as groundless he can also by reasoned order discharge the accused. In this case, if the accusations are groundless, the copies of the past orders in the previous criminal proceedings can be brought to the notice of the learned trial Magistrate at Yavatmal, therefore, no case is made out by applicants for to come within exceptional or rarest of the rare case so as to justify the invoking inherent powers of Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the applicants have alternative efficacious remedy so as to get discharge from the learned trial Magistrate, Yavatmal. That being so, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Needless to state that the trial Magistrate may consider the plea if made by the applicants before the learned trial Magistrate deciding to frame the charge in this case. 10. Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.