I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By making this application, under Section 482 Cr PC., the petitioner, who is accused in Bijni Police Station Case No.89/2007 (corresponding to GR Case No. 143/2007), under Sections 448/352/427/34 IPC, presently pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni, has sought for setting aside and quashing of the entire proceeding including the First Information Report, which gave rise to the registration of the said case. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. While dealing with the merit of the present criminal petition, the case of the informant, as discernible from the First Information Report (in short, 'the FIR') may, in brief, be described thus: On 23.09.2007, at about 12.10 p.m., the present petitioner, accompanied by her two children, who were also ex-students of Holy Child School, Bijni, came into the office of the Principal, Holy Child School, Bijni, and assaulted the informant, who is the Principal of the said school, the staff of the school and damaged the office room and some of the properties, lying in the office of the said school, thereby intimidating the students, staff and Vice President of the school and, even while leaving the school, she abused whoever she found on her way.

3. Before entering into the merit of the present criminal petition, it is necessary to point out that the law with regard to the quashing of criminal complaint or FIR is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out; Gajendragadkar, J, speaking for the Court, however, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, consists of cases, where the allegations in complaint or the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the FIR in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, observed the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused.

4. From the case of R.P. Kapoor (supra), it becomes abundantly clear that when a mere look into the contents of a complaint or FIR shows that the contents thereof, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, shall be quashed.

5. As a corollary to what has been discussed above, it is also clear that if the contents of a complaint or an FIR constitute offence, such a complaint or FIR cannot be quashed except where the complaint or the FIR is, otherwise also, not sustainable in law.

6. Laying down the scope of interference by the High Court in matters of quashing of FIR or complaint, the Supreme Court, in the leading case of State of Haryana & other vs. Bhajanlal & other, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, observed as follows:-

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article