JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this petition the Petitioners, who were accused in I.C.C. Case No. 112 of 1981 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, prayed for quashing the order dated 26.7.1982 by which cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 354 I.P.C. was taken against them. 2. In order to appreciate the contention raised in this case, it is necessary to relate a few facts. Opposite party No. 2 was the complainant. She was serving as an Assistant Teacher' in South Eastern Railway M.E. School of Berhampur town. Petitioner No. 1 was the Assistant Engineer of the said Railway and was the Chairman of the School Committee. Petitioner No. 2 was the husband of another Assistant Teacher of the said school. In the complaint petition filed on 21.10.1981, opposite party No. 2 alleged that on 19.10.1981 at about 3.45 p.m. in the presence of the staff of the school and others the Petitioners, as well as three other persons, abused her in obscene language, misbehaved with her and forcibly took her signatures on some papers. She, therefore, stated that they had committed offences u/s 294, 304 and 506 I.P.C. On 28.10.1981 the initial statement of opposite party No. 2 as recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) and submit his report. The District Inspector of Schools submitted his report of enquiry which was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.1.1982. After consideration thereof, he rejected the report and gave a further direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, in conduct a fresh enquiry, in course of which he examined only two witnesses and submitted a report to the effect that there was a prima facie case u/s 354 I.P.C. against the Petitioners atone. This report was considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28.7.1982 and peculiarly enough he took cognizance of the offence u/s 354 I.P.C. against all the five accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition. It is worth while to note here that revisions were carried and ultimately except the Petitioners, the order of cognizance against the rest was quashed. 3. Mr. J.M. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, raised two contentions. First, the Chief Judicial. Magistrate should have conducted the enquiry u/s 202 himself instead of delegating his function to another Judicial Magistrate. It is worth while to note here that revisions were carried and ultimately except the Petitioners, the order of cognizance against the rest was quashed. 3. Mr. J.M. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, raised two contentions. First, the Chief Judicial. Magistrate should have conducted the enquiry u/s 202 himself instead of delegating his function to another Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the order of cognizance passed on the report of enquiry of the other Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained according to law. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Omprakash Saha Vs. Manmohan Mohanty and Another assuming the facts stated in the complaint petition are correct, no, offence is disclosed against the Petitioners. Accordingly, he prayed that not only the impugned order of cognizance dated 28.7.1982 should be set aside, but whole or the 'criminal proceeding should be quashed. 4. The decision in the case of Omprakash Sahu v. Manmohan Mohanty and Anr. (supra) is being consistently followed by this Court. It was held therein that an order u/s 202 cannot be passed entrusting a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and such an enquiry report made by another Magistrate on the basis of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is invalid and the accused persons cannot be summoned on the basis thereof and as such, order summoning the accused persons is illegal and against the provisions of the Code. In the present case, as would appear from the order dated 5.1.1982, the Chief Judicial Magistrate entrusted the enquiry u/s 202 to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who actually conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. The order of cognizance was based on such report. The case is, therefore, covered by the principle laid down in the decision of the case of Omprakash Sahu v. Manmohan Mohanty and Anr. (supra) and on the impugned order of cognizance dated 28.7.1982 is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Devasis Panda, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, however, tried to distinguish the aforesaid decision by citing another decision reported in 61 (19813) C.L.T. 610, Chandrakanta Sahu and Anr. v. Mathuri Sahu. In this decision the principle laid down in the previous decision was followed. But the facts were quite different. 5. Mr. Devasis Panda, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, however, tried to distinguish the aforesaid decision by citing another decision reported in 61 (19813) C.L.T. 610, Chandrakanta Sahu and Anr. v. Mathuri Sahu. In this decision the principle laid down in the previous decision was followed. But the facts were quite different. In that case the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate empowered to take cognizance directed another Judicial Magistrate of the same station to make an enquiry u/s 202. After submission of the report of enquiry and on the basis thereof cognizance of the offences was taken. The procedure adopted was patently illegal in view of the decision in the case of Omprakash Sahu v. Manmohan Mohanty and Anr. (Supra). But the order of cognizance was not challenged at the earliest opportunity and the trial was completed and the accused persons were convicted for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. The convicted persons appealed before the Additional Sessions Judge, but without any success. Thereafter, a criminal revision was filed in this Court and while arguing the criminal revision the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners (convicted persons) raised this belated plea with regard to invalidity of the order of cognizance. In view of the above facts, the case was distinguished and it was held that even though there was an irregularity, it was cured by the provisions of Section 465 of the Code and failure of justice had not been occasioned. It will thus appear from the above discussion that the decision cited by Mr. Panda is not to the point and does not support his contention. 6. Now coming to the complaint petition itself, it is seen that opposite party No. 2 made general allegations, such as, the Petitioners scolded her in filthy and obscene language, misbehaved with her and forced him to sign on some documents. On the face of the allegations made in the complaint petition and even after making an enquiry, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find trace of any case against the Petitioners under Sections 294 and 506 I.P.C. He found a prima facie case u/s 354 I.P.C. only against the Petitioners. This reference is made not because I am relying upon the report of enquiry, but to show the futility of the allegations made by opposite party No. 2. This reference is made not because I am relying upon the report of enquiry, but to show the futility of the allegations made by opposite party No. 2. It was further not specifically stated by her that her wearing apparel was pulled by any of the Petitioners or her modesty was otherwise outraged. On the ocher hand, in the presence of a large number of respectable persons including women in the place of meeting, it appears improbable and absurd that the Petitioners, two responsible persons outraged the modesty of an Assistant Teacher like Opposite party No. 2. In this connection, Mr. Das cited Prafulla Mohanty Vs. Ashok Kumar Das wherein the well known principles, following which the order of a Judicial Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside, were laid down as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) 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; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. In another case cited by him and reported in 59 (1985) C.L.T. 78, Nrusingha Charan Panda and 2 Ors. v. State of Orissa and Anr., it was held: Law is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction does not ordinarily interfere with a criminal proceeding at an interlocutory stage unless there are exceptional circumstances. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or other wise to secure the ends of justice. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or other wise to secure the ends of justice. If there is no prima facie case and, when the facts alleged in the complaint petition even though, accepted as correct in their: face value do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged, inherent power u/s 482 of the Code can be exercised and the criminal proceeding quashed. The above view is supported by authorities such as R.K. Kapur v. State of Punjab, Hareram Satpathy v. Tikraram Agarwala and Ors., Judhistir Das v. Patitapaban Hota and Anr., State of Orissa v. Mr. Abdul Karim and Mathew Omalt and Anr. v. State of Orissa, to cite a few. In view of the aforesaid principles and on consideration of the facts and allegations made in the complaint petition, even if they were assumed to be true, I do not find that there is even a prima facie case for any of the offences alleged, much less u/s 354 I.P.C. The allegations seem improbable and absurd. Therefore, if the trial of the Petitioners continues, there shall be abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 112 of 1981 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, is quashed. Final Result : Allowed