JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 06.03.1999 and summoning order dated 16.03.1999 in Case Crime No. 681F/1994, under Sections 147, 336, 504 & 506 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur including the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, MP/MLA Court, Sultanpur, on the ground that the applicant has been implicated falsely.

3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicant and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicant or not.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following words:

“102. 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:

a.1 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.

a.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.

a.3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

a.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 a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

a.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.

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

a.7 Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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 grudge.”

5. After laying down the principles for exercise of the discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Bhajan L