1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sunil Kumar for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.P.P.

2. The present petition seeks quashing of prosecution initiated through Complaint Petition No. 274(C) of 2006 arising out of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 79 of 2006 by which the two petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial for offences under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case in short, as stated in the complaint petitiion, was that when the complainant was returning from Biharsharif with the witnesses named therein six persons including the two petitioners armed with pistol surrounded him. Petitioner Vijay Kumar put the pistol on the chest of the complainant and relieved him of an amount of Rs. 2000/-, a Cellular mobile phone as per the description in the complaint petition.

4. The complaint petition was sent to the police initially under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation which reported the case palpably and maliciously false while submitting the final report and also presented the prosecution report for the prosecution of opposite party no. 2 and the final report was submitted. In the meantime opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition by way of protest and that petition was taken up for hearing and after the examination of the complainant on S.A. and the two witnesses during the enquiry the impugned order dated 13.3.2007 was passed.

5. The contention of Sri Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has presented the background of the litigation leading to the filing of the earlier police case and the protest petition. It was contended that the petitioner who was a Junior Engineer had filed Bihar (Sohsarai) P.S. Case No. 392/04 under Sec. 364(A) read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. against opposite party no. 2 and others in which the police sent up the abovenamed opposite party for trial and on the date of occurrence as also that of filing of the complaint petition the said case was being tried by a court and petitioner no. 2 was a witness in that trial. It was contended that it appears patently absurd and inherent improbability that when the parties were at daggers drawn, the two petitioners could be committing the offence against their staunch enemy. The other aspect which was highlighted by Mr. Kumar was that in fact the prosecutioin has not been launched for securing the ends of justice, rather it had been filed in order to spitting at the accused and to satiate malicious intent of the complainant and thus it appears emerging from gross malice which opposite party no. 2 was nurturing against the petitioners.

6. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand, contended that there are definite allegations against the two petitioners who were duly identified and named in the complaint petition. It was further contended that the abovenoted Bihar (Sohsarai) P.S. Case No. 392/04 was tried and the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted by the judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions Trial No. 214/05 on the 6th day of December, 2005. It was further contended that Basant Prasad, petitioner no. 2 could not be said to be prosecuted out of any malice.

7. Sri Kumar the learned counsel for the petitioners replied that Basant Prasad was one of the witnesses in the abovenoted Sessions Trial No. 214/05.

8. As regards the jurisdiction of this Court under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. it is well known that the same could be exercised very sparingly in some rare cases so as to quashing the prosecution. However, if the Court finds that the prosecution has been launched in order to spitting at the accused as also to satiate the malicious intent and without the purpose of seeking justice, then in that case the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. There are certain other conditions also under which the prosecution could be qushed and that includes the one which indicates that if the al