The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C should not be exercised to defeat legitimate prosecution, and the material available on record should disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the accused persons.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral): Challenge is to the order dated 1.2.201 2, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, in case No.138-1 of 2011, whereby in view of the preliminary evidence led by respondent Smt. Sheela Devi, hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’, on finding sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused persons under Sections 427, 447, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, they all have been summoned in the case. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in the trial Court.

2. By filing this petition, inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is sought to be exercised for quashing of impugned order on the ground, inter-alia, that from the preliminary evidence produced by the respondent- complainant, allegations of her alleged beating by the accused persons, have not at all been established, as CW1 Dr. Mrs. Abhilasha Thakur, who medically examined her, did not notice any injury on her person. Also that the dispute, if any between the parties, as disclosed from the complaint, is purely civil in nature and no criminal liability arises out of the same. The complaint allegedly is counter blast of the complaint lodged against the respondent by the accused-petitioner previously in which a compromise was entered into between them. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no occasion for her to have filed the present complaint. It is also alleged that there is delay in filing the complaint, which remained unexplained and as such on this score also, the complaint deserves to be quashed.

3.On behalf of the accused-petitioner, it is argued that there is no iota of evidence to suggest, even prima-facie, the commission of the alleged offence by the accused petitioner. According to leaned counsel, to allow the complaint to proceed further, would amount to abuse of process of the Court. It has, therefore, been urged that the complaint as also the proceedings conducted therein, including impugned order, be quashed and set aside.

4.Learned counsel, representing the respondent- complainant, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused, has forcefully contended that the material available on record is sufficient to establish prima- facie the commission of the alleged offence by the accused- petitioner and his co-accused.

5.Having gone through the record and also analyzing the rival submissions, before coming to the merits of the case, it is desirable to take down the legal principles applicable to a case of this nature settled by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follow:

“108. 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 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to given an exhaustive list of myriad kind of cases wherein such power should be exercised.3. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 4.Wherethe allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order