IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in a complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Fathima Beevi, J. - Leave granted. The appellant, Smt. Chand Dhawan, was married to the fast respondent, Jawahar Lal, on 19.9.1972. After three children were born, the spouses started to live separate. The children are left with the father. A spurt of litigation followed thereafter. Proceedings for dissolution of the marriage, custody of the minor children and criminal prosecution are pending between the parties. While so, the appellant instituted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for bigamy alleging that Jawahar Lal married Shashi Arora at Amritsar on 8.2.1989; that the parents of Jawahar Lal and Shashi Arora in conspiracy intentionally abetted the performance of the second marriage with the full knowledge that the first marriage of Jawahar Lal with the appellant, Smt. Chand Dhawan, was subsisting. Jawahar Lal, Shashi Arora, the parents of Jawahar Lal and the parents of Shashi Arora were arrayed as accused. After recording the statement on oath of the complainant and two witnesses, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for offences under sections 494 and 109, I.P.C., and issued summons to the accused persons. The accused appeared before court and were released on bail. The first respondent, Jawahar Lal, there after moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under section 482. Cr. P.C., for quashing the complaint. The High Court by the impugned judgment/order dated 18.3.1991 quashed the complaint and the subsequent proceedings. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the appeal on special leave granted.

2. The High Court in allowing the miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent has said that in view of the contradictions which go to the root of the case including the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance and proceed with the impugned complaint, the continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the impugned complaint before the trial court at Amritsar would certainly amount to the abuse of the process of the court.

3. The two grounds for arriving at this conclusion are that (1) the appellant had lodged the first information report before the police on 30.3.1989 and under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the marriage between the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnised at Greater Kailash, New Delhi in February 1989 quite contrary to the allegations under the present complaint and (2) Vijay Bharti, one of the persons, stated to have performed the second marriage has filed an affidavit dated 7.5.1990 before the court stating that he did not perform any such marriage.- The complainant had emphatically stated before the High Court that the documents relied on by the respondents are not genuine, no such first information had been lodged by the appellant before the Police Station, NOIDA, Ghaziabad and that Vijay Bharti has also not sworn the affidavit produced in court. The objection was rejected by the High Court stating that the specific averments made in the petition have not been contradicted by the complainant by filing the reply.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P.C., has made a probe into the truthfulness of the allegations made and proceeded to analyse the evidence which could be produced in support of the allegations and in so doing had overlooked the well-settled principle laid down for guidance white exercising the inherent power. According to the appellant, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint on the basis of the allegations made which clearly reveal the commission of an offence. The materials produced by the complainant to satisfy the magistrate at the initial stage has been duly considered before issuing process and the question whether the case would result in conviction or not is not a matter for consideration at that stage and there was, therefore, no justification for the High Court to quash the proc