Mahendra Bhushan, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 249/78, M.K. Gupta v. T.F. Pardiwala and Ors. pending in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Camp Rawatbhata and arises in the following circumstances.
2. The accused-petitioner (1) Pardiwala is the Chief Project Engineer folding the charge of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata and Narela. The accused petitioner (2) O.P. Bansal, who belongs to the cadre of RAS is the Chief Administrative Officer of the said project at Rawat Bhata The accused-petitioner (3) B.P. Srivastava Is the Chief Security Officer, Atomic power Project, Rawat Bhata, and is a retired police officer, and accused petitioner (4) Pritam Singh is the Assistant Security Officer, in the Raj as than Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata. A complaint was filed by the non-petitioner (2) against the four accused-petitioners in the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. Begun, Camp Rawat Bhata, on May 26,1978 with the allegations that on 19-5-78 at about 4 P.M. a watchman, whose name he does not know, was sent at his house to call him. It was given out by the said watchman that he was required at Labour Welfare Centre at about 6 P.M. in connection with the quarter. When he reached the Labour Welfare Centre at 6 P.M. that day, all the four accused were present and they pressed him to withdraw the complaint which he had filed against the Chief Security Officer and Pritam Singh inconnection with the breaking open the locks of his quarter. But, when he did not agree to it, he was beaten and abused by the accused-petitioners. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 and further recorded the statement of K.V. Sharma Under Section 202(1), Cr. P.C. and vide his order dated 27-5-78 took cognizance of an offence Under Section 323, 385 and 504, IPG against Pardiwala and Bansal. He also took cognizance Under Section 323, IPC against Mr. Srivastava and Under Section 323 and 342, IPC against Pritamsingh All the accused put in appearance and applications were filed by them for exempting them from personal appearance, which too was dis-allowed, and against that order a separate Misc. Application has also been filed which shall be disposed of by a separate order.
3. It is contended bf Mr. Mathur, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that M.K. Gupta is an ex-employee of the Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata, and he bad been allotted a quarter for residential purposes, but his services were later on terminated and he was required to vacate the quarter, which he did not do. Therefore, proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against Shri Gupta and an order of eviction was passed. He preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, and that too was dismissed, and in order to wreck vengance this false case has been lodged against the accused petitioners. He submits that even if toe allegations are taken at their face value, they do not go to make out a case Under Section 323, 385 and 304, IPC against Pardiwala and Bansal, and also do not go to make out a case Under Section 323, IPC against Mr. Srivastava as also Under Section 323 and 342, IPC against Pritam Singh. He contends that the order of taking cognizance against the said accused-petitioners is nothing but the abuse of the process of the court and it is a proper case in which the entire proceedings should be quashed. It is further contended that even if some incident took place, it was of minor nature, and the case was such which is covered under Section 95, IPC as the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would make a complaint of such harm. Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate for Mr. Gupta, on the other hand, contends that the evidence which has been adduced under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P.C and on which cognizance of the offence has been taken, is such from which is prima facie case against the accused petitioners for which cognizance has been taken is made out, and merely because on appreciation of evidence, this Court may take a different view no Interference in the exercise of inherent powers is called for.
4. The powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. which are called inherent powers are unlimited and it is well settled that the court is required to exercise these powers either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to give or to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order or the part of the order under the Code. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muni swamy and Ors. , their Lordships have dealt with the inherent powers of this Court in criminal and civil matters. It has been observed as follows:
Gajandra Garkar J. who spoke for the Court observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which can govern the exercise of High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as one conferred by Section 482 ought not to be encased within the straight-jacket of a rigid formula.
5. No doubt, while exercising the inherent powers of this Court, it is not expected to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in a case is reliable or not. But, the Court is definitely required to see as to whether there is any material on record on the basis of which cognizance can be taken against the accused persons. If the case is such in which in the opinion of the Court there is no material which will go to make out a case worth taking cognizance, then the court can and should in the exercise of its inherent powers quash the order taking cognizance.
6. Let us now turn to the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record Under Section 200 and 202(1), Cr. P.C. to see as to whether there is any material worth the name of which the Court should have taken cognizance. The court has taken cognizance of an offense Under Section 385, IPC against Pardiwala and Bansal. Perhaps, the Court has not even cared to look to the Ingredients of that section. This Section only applied when in order to the committing of exhortion, which is defined in Section 323, IPC, the accused puts any person in fear or attempts to put any person in fear of an injury. There are no allegations in the complaint or statements recorded Under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. which can go to make out the ingredients of an offence Under Section 385, IPC. Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate has frankly conceded that no offence Under Section 385, IPC is made out and therefore, in may be said that there is no material on record on which the learned Magistrate could form an opinion that there Is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons Pardiwala and Bansal for an offence Under Section 385, IPC.
7. I have already given the facts above that the services of Gupta had been terminated and he was no longer an employee of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata, and the quarter was allotted to him when he was in service. Relating to that, an order of eviction was passed against Mr. Gupta under the Act and Mr. Gupta had also lost his appeal in Court of District Judge, Pratapgarh. The allegations in the complaint are that Mr. Gupta had filed a complaint against the Chief Security Officer and Pritam Singh accused-petitioners for broking open the lock of his quarter, and he had been called by the accused-petitioners to exert pressure on him to withdraw that complaint. He was sent for through a Watchman, but the name of the watchman has not been given. He also stated in the complaint that when he refuted to withdraw the complaint Pritamsingh bolted the door from inside and thereafter be was slapped Pritamsingh and was pushed, as a remit of which he fell on the ground near the feet of Mr. Srivastava who kicked him and also gave fist blows. Thereafter Pardiwala and Bansal hurled filthy abuses and also pushed him. Some body knocked the door from outside, and when the door was opened, he saw Mr. Sharma and others, who have witnessed the occurrence and intervened. It appears that he lodged the report on the same day in the police, but as given cut by the learned Advocate at the bar, the police submitted a final report It may be observed here that Mr. Bansal and Pardiwala were not a party to the complaint, which was lodged by Mr. Gupta against the Chief Security Officer and Pritamsingh. If Mr. Gupta would have been mishandled in the manner, as alleged, then there must have been in the ordinary course some marks of injury on his person. To cause hurt, it is cot necessary that there should be any injury, but the facts of this case go to show that there must have been tome injury, may be of miner nature. There is no medical report in support of the complaint. It is not mentioned in the complaint as to what abuses wire hurled and it was only in his statement that he came out with the abuses, which were allegedly hurled by the accused persons Pardiwala and Bansal Mr. Gupta has further stated that Sitaram K.B. Sharma and one other person knocked the door from outside and only then it was opened. K.B. Sharma, who was examined Under Section 202(1) Cr. PC. as PW 2 states that when the door was opened, all the three accused, Pardiwala Bansal and Srivastava were sitting. He further states that Pardiwala gave out that he will see that the son of a goat is sent cut of Rawat Bhata a statement which is not made by Mr. Gupta, nor there is any mention of it in the complaint. Surprisingly, Mr. Sharma further states that Mr. Gupta gave out that Pardiwala and Bansal also beat him, a fact which is no mentioned in the complaint, nor stated by Mr. Gupta in his statement Under Section 200, Cr. P.C.
8. No doubt, under law, all persons how ever high or low are to be treated equally, but at the same time, the Court has to see whether the allegations which are levelled go to make out a case on which cognizance should be taken or Lot. A process under Section 204. Cr. P.C. can only b issued if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be exclusively triable by him. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, then he is to dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C. In Muniswamy’s case (supra) it was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the words “sufficient ground for proceedings” as follows:
It was held by them while considering the true scope of Section 203 of the Old Code that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the result of an enquiry or investigation and he must apply his mind to the Judicial material on which he forms his judgment. Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it should deter mine whether the material on record, if unrebutted is such on the basis of which the conviction can be said to be reasonably possible.
9. After going through the material on record. I am of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground for the learned Magistrate to proceed against any of the accused petitioners, and, to my mind, even if the material which is on record remains unrebutted, it will not be reasonably possible to convict the accused.
10. I, therefore accept this petition, quash the order of the learned Magistrate dated 27-5-78 taking cognizance against the accused petitioners for the various offences, mentioned above, and hereby quash, further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 249/78.