J. P. SEMWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the order dated 11-2-1981 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and for discharge of the applicants. The relief claimed in the application is for allowing the revision but it is brought to my notice that before filing this application it was converted under S. 482, Cr. P. C. as is clear from the title of the case, but the relief claimed in the application has not been amended. I am proceeding to dispose of this application treating it to be under S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) NONE has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in spite of personal service. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State are present. The facts leading to the present proceedings are very short. The opposite party No. 2, Raghuraj Singh, is a military man, who was posted at Meerut at the relevant time. He filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 17-12-1980 (vide copy of the complaint, Annexure 1) regarding an incident dated 16-12-1980 which occurred at about 5-30 p. m. and in which he was beaten by accused applicants Kamta Prasad, Master, Deodutt and Jai Ram and was relieved of Rs. 150. 00 cash by accused master and was relieved of his wrist watch forcibly by accused Jai Ram. The complainant raised alarm which brought to the scene of occurrence witnesses Om Prakash, Mahabir, Ranbir, Ratan and others passers by who witnessed the occurrence and also chased them for quite a long distance, as a result of which accused applicant Kamta Prasad was apprehended. The said Kamta Prasad on the interrogation disclosed the names of other accused persons. When the complainant and the witnesses Om Prakash and others were bringing accused Kamta Prasad to police station Sadar Bazar, Meerut Canatt the other accused persons, namely Master, Deodutt and Jai Ram, armed with pistol and knife got Kamta Prasad released and fled away. It is also mentioned that the complainant had gone to lodge the report at police station Sadar Bazar but the Station Officer did not allow the report to be scribed and, therefore, the complaint was filed in the court. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant under S. 200, Cr. It is also mentioned that the complainant had gone to lodge the report at police station Sadar Bazar but the Station Officer did not allow the report to be scribed and, therefore, the complaint was filed in the court. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant under S. 200, Cr. P. C. (vide copy of the statement, Annexure 1-A) and instead of enquiring the case himself under S. 202, Cr. P. C. he directed investigation to be made by the police, who submitted its report dated 13-1-1981 (vide copy of the report, Annexure - 2 ). In this report, the last line reveals that the police found the case truthful on the basis of the enquiry made from the witnesses Om Prakash, Ratan, Ranbir and Mahabir with regard to the incident. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 11-2-1981 after perusing the statement of the complainant made under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and examining the enquiry report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police dated 13-1-1981, which was submitted after enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. found that there are sufficient grounds for issuing process against the accused-applicants under S. 392, IPC. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State. The argument made by the learned counsel for the applicants was that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the first information report dated 25-11-1980 (vide copy, Annexure-3) which had been filed by the applicant No. 1, Kamta Prasad at Kotwali Mainpuri against the brothers and father of the opposite party No. 2. Ranjeet Singh and others under Ss. 147, 452 and 323, IPC. It was further contended that neither any first information report, nor any injury report had been filed by the complainant. No witness other than himself (complainant) has also been examined by the complainant it is also contended that all the accused-applicants are residents of Mainpuri though the incident is alleged to have taken place at Meerut and that the entire complaint case is false and concocted one only to implicate the applicants as accused in the case. ( 4 ) IT may be added at the very out set that the scope of S. 482, Cr. ( 4 ) IT may be added at the very out set that the scope of S. 482, Cr. P. C. is very wide and the very plenitude of power requires great caution in exercising this power and the court must be careful to see that its decision in the exercise of this power is based on sufficient principles. The inherent power conferred by this Section is not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. In these proceedings, no doubt, the complaint can be quashed and even the impugned order can be quashed, provided the applicants are able to show that the complaint does not disclose any offence if taken at its face value, or there has been abuse of process of court by passing the impugned order by the Magistrate concerned. From a perusal of complaint and the material before the Magistrate, it cannot be said that this complaint does not disclose any offence. The Magistrate concerned examined the complainant under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and directed the police to investigate the case under S. 202, Cr. P. C. and after perusing the complaint, the statement of the complainant under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police dated 13-1-1981 found that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons. There appears no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate concerned under S. 202, Cr. P. C. cannot look into the evidence of the accused, nor this Court can look into pros and cons of the complaint case or the creditability of the witnesses. It is for the trial court to give its finding regarding truthfulness or falsity of the complaint case. This court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. cannot examine the sufficiency of reasons given by the Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion after applying his mind. It is for the trial court to give its finding regarding truthfulness or falsity of the complaint case. This court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. cannot examine the sufficiency of reasons given by the Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion after applying his mind. It is well settled by long catena of the decisions of the Supreme Court that at the stage of issuing process the magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into the merits and demerits of the case, nor can the High Court can go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction. ( 5 ) HAVING given my careful consideration to the contentions made in the application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, I do not find it a fit case for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for interference in this case. ( 6 ) IN the result, the present application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( 7 ) THE interim order dated 30-9-1981 is hereby vacated. Application dismissed. .