Dipak Misra, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashment of the order dated 27.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur by which he has taken cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1042 of 2009.

2. Questioning the correctness of the order Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before taking cognizance and, in fact, has passed the order in a mechanical manner. It is urged by him that the learned Magistrate has remained oblivious of the factum that before issuing notice he has to keep in mind that issuance of notice, unless warranted, would cause hardship to the person, who has to appear in a criminal court. Learned counsel has also contended that Rule 31 of the Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been totally given a go-by by the court below as a result of which the order passed by him has become sensitively vulnerable. It is his further submission that the complainant is the cousin brother of the present petitioner no. 3 and the present complaint case has been filed out of sheer malice with mala fide intention and, therefore, the proceeding deserves to be quashed on the anvil of the law laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604.

3. It is further proponed by Mr. Mishra that the learned Magistrate has really not appreciated the statements made by the complainant and her daughter under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, the order has been passed in a most perfunctory manner. To bolster his submissions, he has commended me to the decisions rendered in Vijay Kumar & Anr. V/s. State of Bihar & Anr., 2008(1) PLJR 723, Parminder Kaur V/ss. State of U.P. & Anr., 2009(7) Supreme 494, and Baijnath Jha V/s. Sita Ram & Anr., (2008)8 SCC 77.

4. The singular issue that emanates for consideration is whether in the obtaining factual matrix a case has been made out for quashment of the order taking cognizance and also the proceeding initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent. Before dwelling upon the issue it is seemly to refer to certain authorities in the field relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance.

5. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Others V/s. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre and Others, (1988)1 SCC 692, the Apex Court pronounced the law on the following terms:

"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue". This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

6. In State of Bihar V/s. Murad Ali Khan and Others, (1988)4 SCC 655, the Apex Court laid down that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In the said case, it has been opined that the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be establish