JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-This Special Leave Petition is against an Order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Writ Petition No. 905 of 1997.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

On 6th November, 1997 2nd Respondent filed a complaint with the Station House Officer, Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In the complaint it was stated that 2nd Respondent had handed over a consignment of 400 Video Cassettes Recorder and 8 sets of 20" Colour Televisions with remote and woofers packed in 417 packages to M/s. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the said firm) for transporting to Guwahati in Assam. In the complaint it was mentioned that the said firm had sent Vehicle No. DBL-4365 to the complainant s godown and loaded the consignment in the vehicle. It was also stated that the said firm issued Lorry Receipt No. 52806 dated 14th October, 1997. It was stated that the consignment had not been delivered. It was stated that the complainant had learnt that the consignment was never sent to Guwahati and was kept by the said firm. In the complaint it was claimed that there breach of trust and forgery on the part of Petitioners who were the proprietors of the said firm. On the basis of this complaint the police called the Petitioners at the Vasant Vihar Police Station on 8th November, 1997. The Petitioner appeared before the police and brought the attention of the police to a letter dated 27th October, 1997 sent by the Petitioners. Thereafter the police registered a FIR on 9th November, 1997.

3. The Petitioners had in the meantime applied for anticipatory bail. The same was refused by the Court. No Appeal or Revision was filed against the Order refusing anticipatory bail.

4. On 16th December, 1997 the Petitioners filed this Criminal Writ Petition No. 905 of 1997 in the High Court of Delhi. In this Petition it was prayed that the FIR registered by the Police be quashed. It was claimed that 2nd Respondent and the Police are acting in abuse and excess of authority conferred by law and are subjecting the Petitioners to harassment of criminal proceedings without there being any sufficient ground for taking action against the Petitioners. To be remembered that in the Criminal Procedure Code there are sufficient provisions which enable a party to move the High Court if there is abuse of the process of law. The Petitioners could have utilised those provisions. Also anticipatory bail had been refused to the Petitioners. The Order refusing grant of anticipatory bail was accepted by the Petitioners as they filed no Appeal or Revision. There was thus no justification for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. However, by this method the Petitioners have managed to stall a proper enquiry for the last over 2½ years.

5. The law on the subject is very clear. In the case of State of Bihar & Anr. v. Murad Ali Khan1, it has been held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage of Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, this Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It has been held that the extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.

6. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel submitted that even before the complaint was filed by the 2nd Respondent the said firm had addressed a Not