The judgment establishes the principle that a prosecution can be quashed if it is based on inherent improbabilities and patent absurdities, and if it stems from a sense of vengeance with malicious intent to falsely implicate the accused.

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who have been holding different administrative powers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, for quashing the order dated 22.6.2007 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323,341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is not denied that the complainant was an employee on daily wages of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) and that he had been put In-charge of the Guest House of the Corporation and as such the keys of the Guest House were in his custody. The complainant alleged that on 27.2.2007 at about 7 P.M. when the complainant was at his residence, all the petitioners came there and demanded the complainant to handover the keys of the Guest House and when the complainant sought reason therefor to be given by the accused persons, they all abused and assaulted him with fists and slaps. It is alleged that out of fear he started shouting and some persons assembled there when petitioner no.1 (Birendra Kumar Sinha) took out a gold chain from the neck of the complainant and petitioner no.3 (Ajay Kumar) snatched his wristwatch. The shirt of the complainant was torn on account of assault and while he was attempting to flee away from there, petitioner No. 6 (Shiva Nath) took out Rs.5,400/- from his shirts pocket and it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioners threatened that if the keys of the Guest House were not handed over to them, the locks would be broken and the complainant could be thrown out from the possession of the Guest House.

4. It was stated further by the complainant that he was threatened not to lodge any report with the police and if he informed the police then he would be ousted from the services of the Corporation and further that they broke the lock of the rooms and took away belongings of the complainant valued at Rs. 50,000/-.

5. The complainant stated that the reasons for the occurrence was that he had chalked out a plan for agitating in support of the demand of the labourers organization which was to be held on 15.2.2007 and a "dharna" was to be held on 28.3.2007 in the Divisional Office of the Corporation and in order to upsetting the schedules of the above agitation, the accused persons had committed the offence.

6. As may appear from paragraph 7 of the complaint petition, the complainant stated that he went to the police station and handed over a written report to the officer present in the police station for institution of the case but on enquiry he came to know that no case was instituted and as such the present complaint was filed.

7. The complainant has appeared through Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate, and has filed his show-cause without the same being solicited by this court from him. I find that besides stating many things, he has annexed copies of a few documents as annexures to the said show-cause. Annexure-A to the show-cause filed by the complainant is the written report which was filed by him as per his statement in paragraph-7 of the complaint petition. What is the difference in the written statement (Annexure-A) filed before the officer present in the Police Station and the complaint petition is that he is alleged filing the report after the occurrence had taken place, that is to say that he filed a report at sometime on 27.2.2007 but Annexure-A to the show-cause is dated 26.2.2007.

8. While hearing the present petition learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such occurrence took place as was alleged by the complainant which may appear from his written report, which is admitted by him to be filed before the Police Officer. He had neither put down any allegation of assault on him by the accused persons nor there was allegation of snatching wristwatch or any ornament or cash nor there was any allegation of threats being held out by the petitioners to the complainant. What the complainant alleged in Annexure-A was that the petitioners had come to seek the deli