JUDGMENT 1. - These four Criminal Misc. Applications are filed under Sections 482, Cr. P.C., 1973, against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur, dated May 8, 1982. As the facts and law involved in these cases are common and they arise out of the same proceeding, they are dealt with and disposed of by this common order. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on May 7/8, 1982, Dr. Manoj Bhargava, accompanied by his wife and daughter, was travelling in first class coach No. 34393-B, Ajmer to Delhi, by a Down train. They were in possession of a Railway Pass. At the time of checking, while the train was being shunted, the petitioners were also found in same coach. Ticket Collector, Mr. Saleem Mohammed, accompanied by the First Class Railway Magistrate, detected the petitioners travelling without tickets or Railway Pass. They were, however, found in possession of platform tickets. The Ticket Collector prepared a charge-sheet and submitted the same to the Railway Magistrate. The Magistrate charge-sheeted the accused-petitioners as under:- Nalini Bhargava : u/s 112 of the Railway Act, 1890. Dinesh Bhargava : u/s 118 & 122 of the Railway Act, 1890. Rajesh Bhargava : u/s 118 & 122 of the Railway Act, 1890. Vinita Sharma : u/s 112 of the Railway Act, 1890. The Railway Magistrate recorded the statements of the accused petitioners under Section 251, Cr. P.C. Both Nalini Bhargava and Vinita Sharma admitted their guilt and stated that the platform tickets were given to them by their relatives. They had travelled from Ajmer to Jaipur without tickets in the first class. They further stated that it was a mistake and prayed for being excused. The remaining two accused-petitioners, namely, Dinesh Bhargava and Rajesh Bhargava, stated that they had entered the coach without proper tickets and they were caught at the time of shunting operation. They committed a mistake and prayed for pardon. Thereafter the case was adjourned to May 21, 1982, for arguments and orders under Section 252, Cr. P.C. On May 21, 1982 power of attorney on behalf of the accused was filed and the case was adjourned to June 8, 1982. 3. Dissatisfied with the above proceeding, all the four petitioners have submitted these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973. 4. P.C. On May 21, 1982 power of attorney on behalf of the accused was filed and the case was adjourned to June 8, 1982. 3. Dissatisfied with the above proceeding, all the four petitioners have submitted these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973. 4. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. It may be noticed that Section 482 of the present Code is the ad-verbatim copy of Section 561-A of the old Code. This provision confers a separate independent power on the High Court to pass orders expedite justified in cases where gross and substantial injustice has beta done or where the process of the Court has been seriously abused. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Sections 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and nowhere a specific remedy is provided by statute. However, Power being extraordinary, it has to be exercised sparingly. In A.I.R 1960 Supreme Court 866 in an application for queshing the proceedings Hon'ble Gajendragadhkar, J, speaking for the Court observed that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after applying the above noted principle on the facts of that case held that there was no longer any bar to the institution of the proceedings or their continuance and it was obvious that the allegation made in the FIR did constitute offences alleged against the appellants. Though their Lordships deplored the delay in the investigation of the case, yet they held that the conduct of the police officers could materially assist the appellant in that case in his prayer and the proceedings which had reached the criminal Court could not be quashed. The scope of Section 482. Cr. PC was examined in considerable details in AIR 197 Supreme Court 1947, where the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of the Code was considered. The scope of Section 482. Cr. PC was examined in considerable details in AIR 197 Supreme Court 1947, where the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of the Code was considered. The scope was further examined in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1754 and AIR 1980 Supreme Court 258. In AIR 1983 Supreme Court 65 their Lordships, after examining all the cases on the subject, held that, "taking the allegations in the complaint as they are without siding or substracting anything if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C." 5. The case of the petitioners is that Dr. Manoj Bhargava is a close relative of them and as he was proceeding along with his family members from Ajmer to Delhi by 2 Down train, they went to see him and entered the platfrom after obtaining platfrom tickets. While they were talking, the Railway compartment, in which Dr. Bhargava was travelling, was detached from the train for shunting purposes. As their luggage was lying inside. all the four petitioners along with Dr. Bhargava's family members entered the coach with the intention to get down when the train returned to the platform. It was further urged that the Railway Magistrate, bearing grudge with Dr. Manoj Bhargava, got the checking done and took illegal proceedings. The statements of the accused petitioners, recorded under Section 251. Cr. PC were bad in law, as no case was borne out from the charge-sheet or any other witness against the petitioners. For framing a charge under Section 112 of the Railway Act it is necessary to prove that the person concerned intended to defraud the Railway Administration and this feet could not be inferred from the circumstances of the case. The petitioners did not possess any luggage and their vehicles were waiting outside the Railway Station. It was further argued that the order sheet did indicate the prejudice of the learned Magistrate. Even if it is held that the cognizance was rightly taken, then the case ought to have been dismissed under Section 256, Cr. PC on May 21, 1982, when neither the complainant was present, nor was any application for exemption of the presence of the complainant made. 6. Mr. Even if it is held that the cognizance was rightly taken, then the case ought to have been dismissed under Section 256, Cr. PC on May 21, 1982, when neither the complainant was present, nor was any application for exemption of the presence of the complainant made. 6. Mr. Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued the case very ably and has placed strong reliance on AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47, AIR 1968 Bombay 39, 1979 Cr. LR 547, AIR 1969 Bombay 1 and urged that mere entry into a railway carriage without ticket is no offence and it would be in the interest of justice, apart from avoiding unnecessary harassment, to his clients, that proceedings be ordered to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State has hotly controvered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He also filed an affidavit of Shri Salim Mohammed, Ticket Collector, in support of the prosecution case prior to the beginning of the arguments on September 29, 1982. The counsel for the petitioners vide his application dated September 21,1982, objected to the procedure adopted by the learned Government Advocate and ultimately argued the case on September 29, 1982, which could not be competed and later on the cases were adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Admittedly the complaint does not suffer from any legal defect, such as, want of sanction or absence of a complaint by any competent authority or complaint being barred by limitation. The question which needs to be considered is whether the allegation, made in the complaint, read in conjunction with the statement of the accused, taken at their face value, make out absolutely no case or allegations made the complaint or charge-sheet are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person could ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Besides the charge and the statement of the petitioners recorded under Section 251, Cr.P.C., there is the affidavit of Shri Salim Mohammed on record, in which it is mentioned that as soon as Ahmedabad-Delhi Mail reached the Jaipur Railway Station, he and Amarsingh got into carriage No. 34393-B and found that the cabin meant for only two persons accommodated six persons. The four petitioners, who were in the compartment, had no tickets and on demanding tickets from them, they made irrelevant answers. After some time when the shunting operation was over, one person had given platform tickets to the petitioners and they produced the same. They refused to make payment of the railway fare and as such he produced charge-sheet before the Magistrate. Unless these facts are contradicted by cogent evidence and it is proved by some evidence or cross-' examination that statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 251, Cr.P.C. are not correct, it would be very difficult to state at this stage that the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd or inherently improbable or that no case is made out against the petitioners There is a distinction between a case in which there is no legal evidence and the case where there is legal evidence, which on appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question or may not be believed in. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or rot. That is the function of the trial Magistrate. 9. The argument that the Railway Magistrate for personal reasons was not happy with Dr. Manoj and due to his influence the checking was clone and a false case was foisted against the petitioners, cannot be accepted at its face value in the facts and circumstances of the case unless some evidence is led in support thereof. The prosecution evidence, including the affidavit of the Ticket Collector, the admission of the accused made in the charge-sheet and in their statements, recorded by the Magistrate, cannot be jettisoned at this stage. 10. The averment made in the petition that if an offence under section 112 of the Railway Act had been committed, the petitioners would have ben arrested,cannot be considered to be a weighty, as the word 'may be arrested' appearing Section 131 of the Railway Act given discretionary power to the Railway servant or the police officer. 11. The plea of mala fide on the part of the Railway Magistrate and his prejudice against the accused-petitioners need to be supported by defence evidence. The plea of guilt to the charges bears the signatures of the petitioners who are educated persons. 11. The plea of mala fide on the part of the Railway Magistrate and his prejudice against the accused-petitioners need to be supported by defence evidence. The plea of guilt to the charges bears the signatures of the petitioners who are educated persons. and if they had put their signatures under compulsion, they could have submitted a protest application then and there or at least the next day. The plea of duress might be correct or might not be correct, but this is not the stage for determining it. Truth, veracity and effect of the facts mentioned in the complaint and the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section 251, Cr. P.C., 1973, are not required to be judged at the initial stage of the trial Standard of test and judgment regarding guilt or otherwise of the accused is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter regarding freming of charge or quashing of proceedings. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977 (4 S.C.C. 39) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while reversing the order of discharge observed as under:- "At the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." 12. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshottam Dass Jhunwala & Ors. (1983 Cr. L.R (SC) 30) the question which came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was whether the order passed by the High Court quashing the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 11 of that case was correct or not. Their Lordships after discussing and reproducing paragraph No. 5 of the complaint in para 3 of the judgment observed,- "for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further." Their Lordships further observed:- "From a perusal of the various clauses of the complaint including paragraph 5, it is quite clear that prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made out and the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations made in paragraph 5 are vague. After making the above observation, their Lordships allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate as a result of which all the accused were ordered to he summoned and placed for trial in accordance with law. 13. On May 21, 1982, only power of attorney was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the case was adjourned for arguments. Thus no proceedings accompanying the allegations of the case were conducted that date. It lay within the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the attendance of the complainant if he was of opinion that his presence was not necessary. The order dispensing with the personal attendance need not be in specific terms, but may be implied from the facts of the case. Reference in this connection is made to A.I.R. 1962 M.P. 38. 14. For the foregoing reasons, all the four criminal Misc. petitions are rejected. The file may be sent back to the Court below for proceeding with the case according to law. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in 'his order will not in any way affect or prejudice the case of either party and affect the final decision of the case. The accused-petitioners are directed to present themselves before the lower Court on February 14. 1983. The accused need not present themselves in person in the Court, if the lawyer appearing for them in the lower Court files an application for exemption of their personal attendance, and the learned Magistrate would allow the same and would call them only when it is absolutely necessary for the just decision of the case.Petitions rejected. *******