S. D. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the applicants and Deo Nath Singh, opposite party No. 2, in regard to consolidation of Tholdings and the said dispute is pending in this Court, in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3968 of 1980. On 2nd November, 1979 the applicants lodged a First Information Report under Sections 352, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code. After the writ petition was filed, the opposite party No. 2 obtained an interim stay order from this Court. On 10th October, 1980, the applicants moved an application for vacating the ex-parte stay order. In the said application, it was further stated that criminal proceedings be taken against the opposite party No. 2, as he had annexed in the writ petition a forged resolution of the Gaon Sabha. ( 2 ) ON 6th December, 1980, a First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 under section 392, Indian Penal Code. A copy of the said report has been annexed as Annexure II to the affidavit filed in support of this application. ( 3 ) ON 9th January, 1981, the High Court after hearing the parties, vacated the stay order passed in favour of the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, on 24th January, 1981, the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under sections 396/397, Indian Penal Code against the applicants. It may be stated here that this complaint, which was filed on 24th January. 1981, was in relation to the same incident which is alleged to have taken place on 6th December, 1980, in respect of which a First Information Report had been filed earlier. On the basis of the said complaint, the Special Judicial Magistrate summoned the applicants. The complaint has been registered as Case No. 37 of 1981, Deo Nath Singh v. Sita Ram and others. The applicants, after they received the summons from the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, filed the present application for quashing the proceedings in the said case. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the alleged incident is said to Thave taken place on 6th December, 1980. Initially, the opposite party No. 2 filed a First Information Report under section 392, Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the alleged incident is said to Thave taken place on 6th December, 1980. Initially, the opposite party No. 2 filed a First Information Report under section 392, Indian Penal Code. In respect of the same incident, now a complaint has been filed on 24th January, 1981, more than One month after the incident, under sections 395/ 396, Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) I have examined the First Information Report a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure II to the affidavit filed in support of the present application, as well as the com. , plaint filed on 24th January, 1981. There is great discrepancy between the things sought to have been taken away by the applicants, both in the First Information Report dated 6th December, 1980, and the complaint dated 24th January, 1981. On a reading of the complaint, it is apparent that this complaint had been, filed as a counter blast to harass the applicants as the High Court had vacated the stay order on 9th January, 1981. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 6 ) IN Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi it has been laid down that where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, it would amount to a case where the proceedings would be liable to be quashed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. ( 7 ) I have examined the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable. It cannot possibly be believed that such an incident, as stated in the complaint, did ever occur. It is clear from a reading of the complaint that it has been manufactured for the purpose of harassing the applicants and with no other motive. It is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations in the complaint are not only improbable, but, on the face of it, they appeared to be absurd. It is clear from a reading of the complaint that it has been manufactured for the purpose of harassing the applicants and with no other motive. It is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations in the complaint are not only improbable, but, on the face of it, they appeared to be absurd. My opinion finds support from one patent fact that on 6th December, 1980, when the First Information Report was lodged, it was lodged under section 392, Indian Penal Code and a complaint is being lodged after 11/2 months when the opposite party No. 2 lost in the High Court under sections 395/396, Indian Penal Code. In this complaint, a list of items, which are alleged to have been taken away by the applicants, have been mentioned. The first item mentioned is a gun No. 28668. There is no mention of the gun at the all in the First Information Report, which was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 6th December, 1980. ( 8 ) IN the result, I allow the application and quash the proceedings in Criminal M Case No. 37 of 1981, Dec Nath v. Sita Ram and others, pending in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. Petition allowed. .