The main legal point established is that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of the court's process and secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases where proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for vengeance and personal grudge.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no. 2

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 09.02.2017 passed in C. A. No. 656C of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul by which he has summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The case of the complainant as per the complaint is that on 11.08.2016, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in which he has stated that petitioner no. 1 Md. Jamiruddin Ansari is a PDS dealer and has not distributed food grains and kerosene oil to the beneficiaries including him since the month of February and sold out the same in black market. He has further alleged that since a complaint in this regard was made to the Mukhiya of the Panchayat, namely, Feku Sharma and having learnt the same, the petitioner no. 1 Jamiruddin Ansari @ Md. Jamiruddin became annoyed and because of that on the date of occurrence all the accused persons being variously armed with deadly weapons entered into the courtyard of the complainant and started hurling filthy abuses. Upon exhortation made by petitioner no. 1 Jamiruddin Ansari, all other accused persons assaulted the informant. They also snatched Rs.10,000/- from the pocket of opposite party no. 2 on the point of pistol. The accused persons took away ornaments, clothes, mobile phone, etc. also. It has also been alleged that a panchayati was convened but even in the panchayati, no solution could emerge. Thereafter, the complainant moved to SHO, Kishanpur Police Station, but he advised him to file complaint in the court.

4. On the basis of aforestated allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 504/34 of the IPC in exercise of the powers under Section 190 of the CrPC and proceeded for inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC.

5. In course of inquiry, statements of altogether four witnesses including the complainant were recorded whereafter the petitioners were summoned to face trial for the offences under which prima facie case was found to be made out.

6. Assailing the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statements of the complainant and witnesses are not consistent. They have tried to maliciously prosecute the petitioners in a false and concocted case. He submitted that from the deposition of the witnesses, it would be manifest that though the occurrence is said to have been committed on 29.07.2016, the complaint has been filed after a sufficiently long time on 11.08.2018 for which no valid reason was given. Lastly, he submitted that opposite party no. 2 is Samdhi of petitioner no. 1 as marriage of his daughter, namely, Saida Khatoon was solemnized with the son of the complainant, namely, Ziyaul Haque. Since daughter of petitioner no. 1 was being tortured due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and was ousted from her matrimonial home, she had lodged an FIR vide Mahila P. S. Case No. 77 of 2016 under Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 05.08.2016 against her husband as well as in-laws and in order to put pressure and blackmail the daughter of petitioner no. 1, the complainant (opposite party no. 2) after institution of the aforesaid Mahila P. S. Case No. 77 of 2016 filed the instant complaint against the petitioners.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant (opposite party no. 2) submitted that there is no truth behind the allegation that the complaint has been instituted maliciously. He submitted that it is true that the petitioner no. 1 is Samadhi o