ORDER :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against him before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda (hereinafter referred to as the “Magistrate”), as also the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid complaint.

2. Facts emerging from the record reveal that the respondent has filed a criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate. In the said complaint, it has been alleged that in the year, 2003, she had entered into a wedlock with the son of the petitioner, namely, Nadeem Ul Haq, who died in the year, 2008. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born. It is alleged in the complaint that after the death of the husband of the respondent, the petitioner started harassing the complainant/respondent and even deprived her of the relief granted by the police department. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner would always harass her and would always try to defame her, as a consequence whereof, she was compelled to marry a second time, which did not go well with the petitioner. Ultimately, on 04.05.2016 at about 11.30 AM, when the complainant was coming back from the Police Lines, Doda, the petitioner abused her and tried to grapple with her. The complainant goes on to allege that with great difficulty, she was able to save herself from the clutches of the petitioner, who threatened to finish her off and to molest her.

3. The learned Magistrate after recording the preliminary statement of the complainant/respondent and her witness, recorded his satisfaction that prima facie offence under Sections 341 and 504 RPC are made out against the petitioner and, accordingly, process was issued against him in terms of order dt. 10.05.2016.

4. It is the aforesaid complaint and the order of issuing process against the petitioner, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of instant petition. In the petition, it is contended that the second marriage of respondent with one Aftab Ahmed is illegal and against the rules, as the said Aftab Ahmed was already a married person. Thus, according to the petitioner, the said Aftab Ahmed has violated the Rule 22 (2) of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, regarding which the petitioner has already filed a complaint before the police department. According to the petitioner, an inquiry has been initiated against the aforesaid Aftab Ahmed by the police department and as a counterblast to this action of the petitioner, the respondent has filed the impugned complaint, which is false and frivolous.

5. It is has been further contended that the complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon are sheer abuse of process of law and as such, the same are liable to be quashed. Petitioner disputes the allegations made in the complaint and claims that the incident narrated in the complaint has never taken place as the same is improbable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the Trial Court.

7. The main contention that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed by the respondent against him is a counterblast to the complaint, which the petitioner had filed before the police department against the husband of the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the act of filing the impugned complaint by the respondent is an act of vengeance and there is no semblance of truth in the allegations made in the complaint. The learned counsel has emphasized the fact that the petitioner is a person, aged more than 70 years and comes from a respectable background, as such, it is improbable that he would commit an act of the nature alleged in the complaint.

8. Before dealing with the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner it would be apt to understand the scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same has been discussed by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pr