The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged and where the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

S. N. Jha, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing an order dated 21-4-1986 whereby the trial court had fixed 12-5-1986 as the date for framing charge against the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that Opp. party no.1 filed a complaint petition on 2-2-1982 in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Patna stating, inter alia, that the complainant is associated with film industry and besides being the Director of Veena Theatre, Patna, he and his father are the financer and distributors of Bombay film producers for which he has also taken a flat at 45, Udathi Tarang, Juhu, Tara Road, Bombay. According to the case of the complainant, he came in contact with the husband of the petitioner and one Ravi Kalra (hereinafter, to be referred as the co-accused) in the year, 1980 at Bombay and at that time the co-accused was engaged in production of film known as Mangal Sutra under the banner of Gaurav Film International (hereinafter to be referred as the Firm) of which the co-accused was sole propriator and incharge of the said firm. The further case is that the financial transactions of the aforesaid firm was conducted by the husband of the petitioner who had been appointed as Attorney of the said firm by the sole proprietor, Ravi kalra with the powers of receipt of finances in connection with the production, distribution exhibition of the said film to the third parties. It is alleged that the husband oi the petitioner and the co-accused had visited Patna on 20-4-1980 and remained here lor two days in connection with business of the aforesaid firm and the complainant met them on the same day where the co-accused offered him for the distribution of his aforesaid film for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh circuit which he accepted and it was agreed upon for making initial payment of Rs.1,50,000/-out of the total price of Rs.6,00,000/. It was further agreed that rest of the amount would be paid within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the film for the above territory. It was further assured that when the film would be ready for release, the agreement in respect thereof would be executed by the said co-accused producer in favour of the distributors including the complainant also.

3. Since the complainant was not in a position to make spot payment of Rs.1,50,000 at one lump-sum at Patna, the co-accused aud G. N. Shah (husband of the petitioner) agreed to receive part payment in respect of the total initial demand of Rs.1,50,000 in two instalments which the complainant was directed to make by December, 1980 and accordingly a sum of Rs.50,000 by way of first instalment was paid on the same day i. e.20-4-1980 at Patna to sri G. N. Shah (since dead) who accepted the same in the capacity of constituted attorney of the said firm vide a receipt granted by him which is annexure-3 appended to this application. It is further alleged thai again in the month of july, 1980, late G. N. Shah and co-accused had telephonic talks with the complainant who was at Patna making demand of Rs.1,00,000 by way of second instalment which they needed for the progress of the said film. Accordingly the complainant went to Bombay and made another payment of rs.1,00,000 to late G. N. Shah on 17-7-1980 at the residence of the complainant. A plain receipt was granted in respect thereof by Sri Shah which is annexure-3/1 appended to this application.

4. According to the complainant, he had grown much intimacy with late g. N. Shah and his wife, the petitioner, who according to the complainant was also associated with the film business since long and so far the film mangul sutra was concerned, she was one of the associate producers acting in complete collaboration with co-accused and late G. N. Shah.

5. The further case of the complainant is that on 28-11-1980 another demand of Rs.50,000 was made by late Shah and the petitioner for their personal needs, but the complainant was giving a clear cut assura