( 1 ) ONE ministerial visit has bred registration of two rival FIRs - FIR No. 677/01 under Sections 186/353/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 lodged by petitioner and rival FIR No. 678/01 under Section 3 of SC/st (POA) Act, 1989 r/w Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed against him. Petitioners wants completion of investigation in the first FIR and quashing of the second one and that is how this writ petition.

( 2 ) IT all happened on 4. 6. 2001 when Health Minister A. K. Walia visited Sultan puri Area. Petitioner was in attendance and so were some political activists including the local MLA Sushila and her husband Ex-MLA Jai Kishan. There are two versions to the incident and hence two FIRs. Petitioner s version is that when the MLA and her husband asked him about his plans for removing encroachments from MCD parks, he told them that he was determined to do so they got infuriated and they incited their supporters who assaulted him and beat him up. He was later rescued by his staff and got away with some injuries. For this he lodged FIR No. 677/01 at PS Sultan Pun and on learning this, local MLA and her husband falsely implicated him in two FIRs including FIR No. 678/01 under Section 3 of SC/st (POA) Act, 1989 r/w Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 as a counter blast.

( 3 ) THE rival version set up in FIR No. 678/01 is that while the Minister was listening to the narration of performance of Horticulture Departmpnt, petitioner be- came furious and started abusing local residents and said chude CHAMARON tumhe MAAR DUNGA MAIN TUMSE NAHIN DARTA". He thereafter assaulted a local worker Babu Lal Khanna and gave him elbow bows. He then manhandled some woman workers - Bhan Devi, Vimia Devi, Kamlesh etc , snatched clothes of some of them and pulled the saari of one Kamlesh and tried to molest her and threatened local workers.

( 4 ) PETITIONER challenges this FIR and attacks it on various grounds. According to him, if the allegations in this FIR were to be taken on the face value, these would not constitute offence under Section 3 of SC/st (POA) Act. The allegations were otherwise in herently improbable as no prudent public servant would indulge in such a behaviour in the presence of his superiors and the Minister The FIR is said to be a counter blast and revengeful action against petitioner who claims to have transferred some of the Maalis/workers, who were the supporters of the MLA and her husband in compliance of the orders of mis court in PIL entitled B. L Wadhera y. Union. The challengp is also thrown to the vires of Section 18 of SC/st (POA) act which was not, however, pressed in service by petitioner s counsel.

( 5 ) THE power of the High Court to quash an FIR/criminal proceedings in certain circumstances is undisputed. The court enjoys Doth inherent and writ power to quash a complaint/f;r and even a summoning order and the on-going criminal proceedings where it felt satisfied that uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint/fir and supporting material gathered at investigation, even when taken on face value, did not make out or constitute the alleged offence or that the action was tainted by mala fides, persona] grudge, vengeance or was frivolous and vexatious tantamounting to abuse of process of court.

( 6 ) IN Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambha/irao Chandrojirao angre and Ors. , (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Supreme Court went a step further in holding that investigation and court process could not be allowed to be used for oblique purposes and that the court would be within its bounds to quash the proceedings where chances of seeking convection appeared to be bleak. The court eventually crystalised the position in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 laying down some illustrative guidelines of which the relevant ones are extracted as under.-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in