Short Note : 1. According to the case of the non-applicant the report was made by applicant No.1 Dr. A.G. Sharma in furtherance of the common intention of bath the applicants out of malice and knowing the allegations to be false with intent to defame the non-applicant. It was also alleged that on account of the false allegations made in the written complaint the non-applicant was arrested by the police on 19-5-76 for the offence under sections 420 and 380 IPC and was kept under the police remand till 26-5-76 when he was released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The police then took several dates to put up the challan but ultimately for want of any evidence against the non-applicant the police had to put up a final report under section 169 Cr.P.C. and the non-applicant was, therefore, discharged by the Court on 19-10-76. 2. On the said complaint of the non-applicant the learned Second Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, took cognizance of the offence under section 500 IPC and ordered to issue process against the applicants. The applicants have, therefore, moved this Court to quash the proceedings instituted against the applicants. Held: The non-applicant in his statement, which was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court has stated that once applicant No.1 had asked him to pass a candidate in the examination of which he was the valuer and tried to influence him by saying that he was a candidate of the Vice Chancellor applicant No.2, but he did not oblige the applicants and, therefore, they bore ill-will against him. There is nothing on record to indicate that applicant No.2 did ask applicant No.1 to bring pressure on the non-applicant to pass any candidate. Even presuming that applicant No.1 tried to influence the non-applicant for giving passing marks to certain candidate it is not unlikely that he without the knowledge of applicant No.2 used his name to impress upon the non-applicant to pass the candidate. I am, therefore, of the view that there is not an iota of evidence on record to hold that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against applicant No.2 Dr. I am, therefore, of the view that there is not an iota of evidence on record to hold that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against applicant No.2 Dr. P.G. Deo for the offence under section 500 IPC and as such the order of the learned Magistrate directing issue of the process against the said applicant no.2 for the said offence being an abuse of the process of law must be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. AIR 1977 SC 1754 and AIR 1978 SC 37 relied on. Application partly allowed.