Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot upset concurrent findings accepting a cancellation report without clear illegality or perversity.

The Delhi HC held that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC could not be used to disturb concurrent reasoned orders accepting a cancellation report unless clear illegality, perversity, or abuse of process was shown. On the facts, the material supported the finding that the vehicle had been surrendered, and the petitioner's later payment did not by itself disclose cheating or criminal breach of trust under sections 420 and 406 IPC. As the grounds raised were substantially the same as those already examined below, no jurisdictional error or infirmity was made out, and the complaint could not proceed further.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders accepting the cancellation report and dismissing the protest petition and revision petition suffered from illegality or infirmity warranting interference under section 482; and whether the facts disclosed any prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier approached the magistrate by protest petition after a cancellation report was filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the revisional court had affirmed acceptance of that report. The Court noted that the material on record, including the petitioner's own conduct and the contemporaneous circumstances, supported the finding that the vehicle had been surrendered and that the later payment claimed by the petitioner did not, by itself, establish offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also accepted that the grounds urged in the petition were substantially the same as those already considered by the courts below, and that no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error had been shown in the concurrent orders.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation report remained accepted and the concurrent orders of the courts below were sustained, leaving no basis for further criminal proceedings on the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to upset concurrent reasoned findings accepting a cancellation report unless a clear illegality, perversity, or abuse of process is demonstrated, and a subsequent payment or dispute on facts does not by itself establish cheating or criminal breach of trust where voluntary surrender of the property is found.

---