Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 15 dated 19.7.2004 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) could be said to have been committed by the petitioners. In fact, petitioners had moved a complaint to the Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi qua irregularities committed by the respondent. Hence, the case of the petitioners was covered under exception eight to Section 499 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the petitioners with a view to defame the respondent had moved the complaint (Annexure P-6) before the Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi.

4. Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-1), in brief, is that complainant was working for the welfare of the village being the President of Development Committee of village Malakpur. Petitioners with an intention to cause loss of reputation to the complainant, gave a false application on 7.6.2000 against the complainant to Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi. On inquiry, the allegations levelled in the complaint were found false.

5. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal gr