Point of law : 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 give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

1. Case called out in the revised list. None is present on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri M.P.S. Gaur, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record of the case.

3. The present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet and proceedings of Case No. 2507 of 2008 under Section 504 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of case crime No. 287 of 2007 pending before ACMM-Ist, Kanpur Nagar.

4. As per prosecution case, on 29.6.2007 FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar with the allegation that on 19.4.2006 at about 8 am in the morning, applicants entered in the house of opposite party No. 2 and started beating him and when neighbours intervened then they went back to their home after abusing and threatening him. After investigation, charge sheet against the applicants was filed only under Section 504 IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 2.5.2008 and issued summons to the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that although initially FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and during investigation, allegation in respect of Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC were found false and charge sheet against the applicants was submitted only under Section 504 IPC and, therefore, this fact clearly suggests that the FIR of the instant case was lodged against the applicants with malafide intention on false facts and without proper investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the applicants. He further contended that Section 504 IPC is non-cognizable offence, therefore, as per the explanation to Section 2(d) of Criminal Procedure Code, a charge sheet under Section 504 IPC could not be filed and neither cognizance could be taken on such charge-sheet.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that earlier on 19.4.2006, FIR was lodged by applicant No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC in respect of death of his daughter and in this case opposite party No. 2 is facing trial. He next contended that earlier opposite party No. 2 also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants in respect of the death of his own daughter of applicant No. 1, which was rejected on 11.6.2007 and after rejection of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., opposite party No. 2 after two weeks filed FIR of the present case, on false facts.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly argued that as per prosecution version, the present incident took place on 19.4.2006 while the FIR was lodged on 29.6.2007, thus, there is an inordinate delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR of the present case, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned charge sheet as well as proceedings pending against the applicants, is liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned AGA contended that prima facie FIR and the evidence collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation discloses offence under Section 504 IPC, therefore, neither charge sheet nor proceedings pending against the applicants should be quashed. He further contended that the charge-sheet filed under Section 504 IPC can very well be treated as a complaint according to the explanation of Section 2(d) of Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, taking cognizance on the charge sheet can very well be rectified by learned Magistrate. Learned AGA further submitted that merely on the ground of malafide intention a criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and neither delay in lodging the FIR is very material at this stage and, therefore, present application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have given anxious consideration on the rival contentions advanced b