The inherent power of the Court to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. The Court should not embark upon the enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.

R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, accused in complaint case No. 52 of 1993 by filing this case under Section 482, Cr. P. C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the order of the learned S. D. J. M. , Sadar, Cuttack whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 313, 354, 376 and 506 read with Section 34, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE opp. party-complainant filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia, that she being a divorsee came to Cuttack in search of a job to earn a live since her parents due to impecuniocity were unable to maintain her. Petitioner No. 1 originally belonged to Dhamnagar to which place the complainant-opp. party belongs. But after marriage he has been staying in his in-law's house at Cuttack and doing tax practice. Being need of a maid-servant to attend to domastic works, he engaged the complainant-opp. party on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 100/-, besides boarding and lodging. His wife has taken up a job in the Agro-Industries Department at Bhubaneswar and every day she returns home late in the evening. Taking advantage of the absence of his wife as also the helplessness of the complainant-opp. party, he was exhibiting indecent behaviour towards her. It is alleged that in or about the month of February, 1993 he forcibly removed her wearing apparel and committed rape on her. This was not the only occassion that he had sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that subsequently also he cohabited with her, as a result she became pregnant. Coming to know of this, be wanted to terminate her pregnancy for which he gave her some medicines. She, however, did not take these medicines and disclosed her miserable plight to one Abdul Rasid Khan, a local gentleman, on whose advice she complained to the Secretary of the Basti Committee and because of this, petitioner No. 1's wife assaulted her saying that she was spreading false and vexatious insinuation against her husband. The further case of the complainant-opp. party is that in order to terminate her pregnancy, all the petitioners connived together, got her admitted in the City Hospital in a pseudo name and caused miscarriage without her consent. Next day, they got her discharged from the hospital and sent to her parental home. Narrating her whole plight, she made a complaint to the police and sought for legal action, but since the petitioner No. 1 is an influential man, no action was taken. Then she approached the learned S. D. J. M. , Cuttack and filed the complaint under Sections 376, 313, 354, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34, I. P. C.

( 3 ) SINCE the offences under Sections 376 and 313, I. P. C. are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned S. D. J. M. proceeded with an enquiry as envisaged in Section 202, Cr. P. C. and on conclusion thereof took cognizance of the offence.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners perfervidly advanced his argument contending inter alia that allegations as set out in the complaint are quite absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. He further urged that even if the uncontroverted allegations are believed to be true, yet the same do not disclose commission of any offence punishable under Sections 376 and 313, I. P. C. Therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court the impugned order of the learned Court below taking cognizance of the offence should be quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant-opp. party on the other hand submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court being based on appreciation of the available materials, the Court should be slow to interfare with the same.

( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the contention raised at the Bar, at the out set, it is necessary to note that scope of exercise of inherent power of the Court to quash a criminal proceeding is very limited and as has been held in a caten