The court has the power to quash a complaint if the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable and if the complaint is filed to harass the accused.

Narayan Roy, J.

1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the opposite party complainant

2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 27.9.1993 in Complaint Case no. 251 of 1993 under sections 323, 354, 352, 385 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It appears that the complainant opposite party no.2 filed a petition of complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, on 7.9.1993 stating therein, inter-alia, that on 4.9.1993 at about 10.00 A.M while the complainant was talking with his parents the petitioners came to his house from Bombay and no sooner the petitioner came to his house accused no.3, who happended to be his brother-in-law, demanded the box of his sister, Smt. Pushpa Sharma, on which the complainant told them that his wife has already taken away all her belongings including all her ornaments and the key of the box has also been taken away by her. This caused hot exchange of words and the accused persons got infuriated and they started abusing him with filthy language and the accused persons took out pistol from their waist and pointed at him and accused no.1 slapped him on his face. In the meantime, one Sushil Kumar Joshi, who happend to be in his house, tried to intervene and the mohalla people collected over there and the accused persons thereafter went away from his house.

4. On the basis of the complaint petition the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and made over the case under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, for enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, accordingly, has held enquiry and on the basis of the statement of the complaint and his witnesses on solemn affirmation issued processes against the petitioners for offence under sections 323, 354, 385 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the complaint case as a first information report was already lodged against the complainant and his family members by petitioner no.1 on 13.8.1993 stating therein that his daughter, Pushpa Sharma, who was married with the complainant, was used to be tortured by the complainant and her inlaws and upon the first information report Khajekalan P.S. Case no. 96 of 1993 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and the complainant was taken into custody and, ultimately, he was granted bail by the court concerned on 3.9.1993. Learned counsel further submitted that as a sequel to the first information report lodged against the complainant the present complaint has been filed stating therein that just next day of his release the petitioners came to his house from Bombay and committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the present prosecution launched against the petitioners, therefore, must be held to be vexatious one as it has been instituted just to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that it was not probable for the petitioners to come from Bombay to Patna collectively for commission of this offence and at the face of the complaint petition the story set forth by the complainant appears to be highly exaggerated and concocted one.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on the contrary, submitted that sufficient facts have been disclosed in the complaint petition making out an offence against the petitioners and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the order impugned merely on the question of facts.

7. I have perused the complaint petition, the first information report lodged against the complainant, as contained in Annexure-2, and also the impugned order. From Annexure-2 the first information report lodged against the complainant