- (1.) What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Hon'ble Apex Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 AIR(SC) 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, 2008 2 RCR(Cri) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:- (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (viii)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(2.) Not only that, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jeffery J.Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 183, having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:- "16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice."
(3.) Such thus being the legal position, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in the instant case is, as to whether the impugned complaint (Annexure P7) filed by the complainantrespondent (for brevity "the complainant") against the petitioners-accused and the summoning order dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure P8), deserve to be quashed at this stage or not;