JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the proceedings initiated against the respondents 1 to 7, in purported exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'cr. P. C. ' ). A prayer was made before learned Sessions Judge, Patna to quash the proceedings in Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2001. Learned s. D. J. M. , Patna in Pirbahore PHB Case No. 120 of 2000 had rejected the prayer of discharge made by the aforesaid respondents. The prayer was made in terms of Section 239 cr. P. C.

( 3 ) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: appellant was married to respondent No. 3 Rajesh Kumar on 1. 7. 1998. Alleging that she was being harassed and tortured both mentally and physically for having not met the dowry demands, complaint was made alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'act' ). Police registered FIR no. 120 of 2000 in Pirbahore Police Station. Appellant's father-in-law filed a complaint alleging assault and criminal trespass by the appellant. Another complaint was filed alleging an attempt to kidnap. A suit for divorce was filed by the husband. Appellant entered appearance in the matrimonial suit which was filed on 15. 3. 2000. Learned principal Judge, Family Court directed grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/-p. m. and the cost of litigation to be paid to the appellant. Respondent's father in law filed Misc. Case No. 12 of 2001 questioning correctness of the maintenance order on the ground that the respondent's husband has no share in the ancestral property and maintenance cannot be paid out of it. Charge sheet was filed on 12. 8. 2000. An application for discharge in terms of Section 239 Cr. P. C. was filed on 28. 8. 2001. The prayer was rejected on 7. 9. 2001 by learned SDJM. As noted above Learned sessions Judge, Patna dismissed the Revision Application being Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2001. Respondents filed a criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. By the impugned order the prayer has been accepted. To complete the narration it needs to be noted that the matrimonial case no. 49 of 2000 filed by the respondent-husband was dismissed on 12. 10. 2004. Learned Single Judge after referring to a judgment of this court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604) held that the present case is a clear example of malafide where the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. Reference has been made to the matrimonial case stating that the same was filed earlier to the lodging of the FIR.

( 4 ) IN support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. have not been kept in view by learned Single Judge, further he lost sight of the fact that the matrimonial Case No. 49 of 2000 was dismissed long before the disposal of the case before the High Court. The matrimonial suit was dismissed on 12. 10. 2004 whereas the impugned judgment has been passed on 19. 12. 2005.

( 5 ) THERE is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice.

( 6 ) EXERCISE of power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of Cr. P. C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Cr. P. C. , (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither pos