JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash First Information Reports as also investigations conducted and action taken thereupon, involving her therein, in connection with her alleged conduct as a General Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Council for Child Welfare. 2. The petitioner is the widow of late Mr. Lal Chand Stokes, one of the three sons of Mr Samuel Stokes, a pioneer in bringing apple revolution in Himachal Pradesh It is her case that after the death of her husband, who was the member of Legislative Assembly from Theog, she in the year 1972 came in active politics She and her husband as Congress candidates were always opposed from this constituency by one Mehar Singh Chauhan, who contested the election either as an independent candidate or a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party (Bhartiya Jan Sangh) oras Janta Dal activist It is alleged that Mehar Singh Chauhan belongs to Balsan area falling in Theog Assembly constituency and is married to the sister of respondent No. 2, who is the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh Because of his close relations, both Mehar Singh Chauhan and respondent No 2 nourished great grudge, feelings of enmity and hostility towards the petitioner. Mehar Singh Chauhan and respondent No. 2 had always worked against her and her husband. 3. After highlighting numerous instances of hostile attitude, it is alleged by the petitioner that in the year 1988, respondent No 2 was transferred against his wishes to the centre He was most unhappy in having left Himachal Pradesh During this period, he remained posted in Jammu and Kashmir. With the change of Government, he managed to come back to Himachal Pradesh in the month of April 1990 and on joining he was appointed to the key post in the Police Department as the Director General. Respondent No. 2 always had the feelings that his transfer to Central Government was on account of the petitioners wishes, as a result of this imaginary feeling, respondent No 2 and other members of his family startehard bouring even more feelings of enmity particularly after 1988. After coming back to Himachal Pradesh and joining as Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 started harassing the petitioner with the support of Bhartiya Janta Party Government, which was in power in Himachal Pradesh. 4. After coming back to Himachal Pradesh and joining as Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 started harassing the petitioner with the support of Bhartiya Janta Party Government, which was in power in Himachal Pradesh. 4. The petitioner claims that being in active politics for the last nearly 20 years, she has held various political positions, being a member of Congress-I In addition, she has been associated at the State, National and at International level in honorary capacity with number of Social, Welfare, Sports and Horticultural activities It is alleged that she is the founder President of Samaj Uthan Samiti Mahasu, being a Samiti dealing with welfare of women and children from 19i2 to 1988; Life Member, H P. Red Cross Society and remained Vice President for many years ; Member, Indian Red Cross Society at national level ; President, H. P. Womens Hockey Federation since its inception about 30 years back; Chairman, H P. State Cooperative Union for 4 years; Chairman, H P. State Krishak Samaj since its inception and Vice-Chairman, All India Fermers Forum for the last 8 years ; Vice Chairman, H. P. Horticulture Produce and Marketing Corporation for five years ; General Secretary, National Womens Hockey Federation for two terms of 4 years each ; President, Indian Womens Hockey Federation for 4 years ; Administrator, Shivaji Stadium during Asiad 1982 ; Vice President, Indian Olympic Association, Member of Jury—Asian Games at Beijing and Seoul ; Vice President, Asian Hockey Federation for two terms ; Member, Tournament Committee of Federation of International Hockey ; Member, National Horticultural Board ; Member, High Powered Committee of Sports Authority of India ; Member, Indian Council for Child Welfare-national level ; Member, H P Vidhan Sabha from 1974-77, 19 0-85, 1985-90, 1990; Minister of State, Rural Development, H. P. for one year and Speaker, H. ¥. Vidhan Sabha from 1985-90. 5. It is further alleged that somewhere in the month of June, 1990, the petitioner supported the farmers agitation, which was sought to be suppressed by the Government, by having resort to coersive methods, under the supervision of respondent No 2. There was a police firing resulting in three deaths in Kotgarh town and injuries to 4-5. Even the women folk in village Bhekalti were beaten by the police during the agitation and they were even manhandled. There was a police firing resulting in three deaths in Kotgarh town and injuries to 4-5. Even the women folk in village Bhekalti were beaten by the police during the agitation and they were even manhandled. Issue was raised by the petitioner in the Vidhan Sabha, of such excessive use of force on the part of police and its top officers, which further increased the feelings of resentment of respondent No. 2 towards the petitioner, particularly because of the petitioner having raised a demand of judicial enquiry by a High Court Judge into the police excesses. 6 In the aforementioned background, it is alleged that the petitioner has been victimised, as a result of conspiracy of respondent No 2, to take revenge and to harass her with the help of his subordinates Originally, in the petition challenge was made with respect to F. I R. Nos 5/90, 6/90, 7/90, 8/90 and 9/90 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Zone, Shimla on the ground that the same were lodged with a view to malign and defame the petitioner and to adversely affect her political image. It has been alleged that the lodging of F 1. K.s is because of the mala fides on the part of respondent No. 2 and also that the allegations made therein, it they are taken at their face value and accepted in the entirety do not even prima facie constitute any offence or making out a case against her. In case, on the basis of F. I. R.s any investigation therein is conducted, the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court. During the pendency of the petition, F. I. R.s No 10 and 11/90 were also registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla and F. I. R. No. 38/91 at Police Station (East), Shimla, which have also been challenged on the same and similar grounds. 7. After narrating the allegations contained in the FIRs, it is alleged that the facts stated therein pertain to the petitioners work and conduct as the General Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Council of Child Welfare with which she has remained engaged for the last several years. She has held the office of the General Secretary from 1977-78 to 31-3-i991 by election. She has held the office of the General Secretary from 1977-78 to 31-3-i991 by election. The petitioner was working as the General Secretary in an honorary capacity having a long and distinguished record of public service and agreed to serve on humanitarian and social cause for child welfare by devoting a lot of her time to the activities of the council voluntarily without any compensation, remuneration or expectation or any such reward 8. The council is headed by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh as its President, who also presides over the meetings of the general body, which is the supreme body of the Council The management of the affairs of the Council vests in the Executive Committee, which is the governing body, which too is presided over by the Governor and the Chief Minister By virtue of clause 16 of the Memorandum of Association of the Council, Executive Committee is empowered to set up a Standing Committee, which consists of Secretary (Welfare), Secretary (Finance), Director Social and Womens Welfare of Government of Himachal Pradesh with General Secretary of the Council as its ex-officio Secretary. 9. It is alleged that before lodging the First Information Reports, no effort was made for conducting an inquiry Cases were got registered without examining the records and without making any thorough inquiry. Registration of the First Information Reports has jeopardised the entire career of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner had been compelled to approach this Court seeking to quash the F I. R.s as also the investigation thereunder. 10. In order to emphasise and highlight the allegations levelled against respondent No. 2 in harbouring a private grudge, the petitioner has also placed reliance on some of the documents, one of which is a copy of plaint Annexure P-10. A Civil Suit h is been filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and the two leading Newspapers i. e Times of India and Indian Express for recovery of Rs, 2,25,000 as damages. The suit is based on the publication of statements in the two Newspapers, alleged by respondent No 2 to have been made by trie petitioner with malice. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has been harassing her in a number of ways. The suit is based on the publication of statements in the two Newspapers, alleged by respondent No 2 to have been made by trie petitioner with malice. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has been harassing her in a number of ways. She as a Speaker of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha abused her position and got him transferred from Himachal Pradesh Because of transfer, respondent No. 2 had suffered mental strain, torture, loss of reputation and had to incur additional expenditure in maintaining two establishments it is also alleged by respondent No 2 that the petitioner made false and baseless statements against him, which were published in the Newspapers, which have adversely affected and lowered down his image and reputation. 11. Respondents have contested the petition. Respondent No. 2 in his reply, though has not disputed his relation with Shri Mehar Singh Chauhan, has denied that he ever took part in the politics or nourished a grudge towards the petitioner or Congress party. It is stated in the reply that his younger brother Bhagat Ram Verma was a Youth Congress President from 1976 to 1983 The allegations of mala fide have been specifically denied by pointing out that he continuously worked from 1973 to 1988 as head of Crime and Intelligence Wings of the State Police in various capacities, such as Superintendent of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police It is alleged that except from 1977 to 1980 when the Janta Party Government was in power, during which period his brother-in-law Shri Mehar Singh Chauhan was a Member to the State Legislative Assembly from Theog Constituency, during the entire period from 1973 to 1988, the Congress party was in power of Himachal Pradesh During this period also, when Congress (I) was in power, he was kept as the head of the C I D. in the State Police. He has further alleged that from April, 19-8 to December, 1988, respondent No. 2 was on deputation to the Border Security Force in Jammu and Kashmir and from December, 1988 to May 1990, he was appointed as Inspector General (G) (Intelligence and Vigilance) Border Security Force at New Delhi. Respondent No 2 has denied the allegations that he was, in any manner, responsible for suppression of farmers agitation in June, 1990. Respondent No 2 has denied the allegations that he was, in any manner, responsible for suppression of farmers agitation in June, 1990. According to him, Additional District Magistrate bad ordered the firing at Kotgarh and action at Bhekhaiti was taken under the orders of the Magistrate, who was present on the spot. It is denied by respondent No. 2 that registration of the concerned F I. Rs and investigations are in any manner at his instance Filing of Civil Suit No 7/91 by him against the petitioner is not denied. It is stated that as a responsible Government servant, he had no other remedy except to file thus suit, in order to vindicate his honour when false and baseless allegations were levelled against him and even complaints were made against him to the higher authorities including to the Governor of the State by the petitioner. 12. Respondent No 1 has filed its reply on the affidavit sworn on 16th July, 1991 by Shri Hira Lai Nashad, Joint Secretary (Vigilance and Home), wherein it is stated that preliminary verification of allegations was made on the complaint of Lachhman Singh Bbatia, which had been forwarded by the Registrar of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh This preliminary verification led to an enquiry and subsequently to the registration of seven F. I. R s against the petitioner and other officials of the State Council for Child Welfare. Denying that the registration of F.I Rs was result of any malafide, it is alleged that the contents of F.I. R. No 9/90, on the face of it show the commission of offences under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No 49/88) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)-It has been alleged that the acts of omission and commission, which have come on record during the course of enquiry pin pointed the complicity of the petitioner and other officials of the Council and as such registration of the case appeared justified and legally correct. Denying that the registration of F. I. R.s is at the behest of respondent No, 2f it has been alleged that the cases have been entrusted for investigation and the Staff of Inspector General (Vigilance) is independently enquiring into the matter. 13. Denying that the registration of F. I. R.s is at the behest of respondent No, 2f it has been alleged that the cases have been entrusted for investigation and the Staff of Inspector General (Vigilance) is independently enquiring into the matter. 13. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 12th June, 1991 in C- M. P. No. 541 of 1991, an order was made directing that no challan shall be filed in the Court against the petitioner on the basis of the First Information Reports Annexure P-i to Annexure P-l/D. It was, however, made clear that investigation into the allegations made in these reports may continue After respondents filed their replies and the petitioner had filed its rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had reason to believe that only five First Information Reports had been registered, but in view of the affidavits filed in reply, three more First Information Reports appeared to have been registered A prayer was made for quashing the same also Copies of F. I. R.s were directed to be supplied to the petitioner and on 2nd July, 1992, interim order was modified permitting respondent No 1 to continue and complete investigation into all the First Information Reports. It was, however, directed that no challan on the basis of the reports shall be put in Court. The prayer made on behalf of respondent No. 1 to recall the order was declined on 17th December, 1992. 14. An application made on behalf of Shri Lachhman Singh Bhatia seeking to be added as party respondent in the writ petition came up for consideration on 4th December, 1992. This prayer was made on the basis that he had submitted a complaint to this Court, which had been forwarded to the Chief Secretary and the Inspector General of Vigilance to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and on the basis of the complaint made by him, criminal cases have been registered Thus, he was entitled to be heard. Though the prayer of Lachhman Singh Bhatia for being impleaded as party respondent was not accepted, yet it was directed that he will be heard as an intervener in the case. 15. On 2nd April, 1993, arguments in the case were heard. It was stated by Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Additional Advocate General that except F. 1. Though the prayer of Lachhman Singh Bhatia for being impleaded as party respondent was not accepted, yet it was directed that he will be heard as an intervener in the case. 15. On 2nd April, 1993, arguments in the case were heard. It was stated by Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Additional Advocate General that except F. 1. R s No 10 and 11 of 1990, investigation in other cases was complete and the prosecution sanction was awaited. It was also noticed that in the affidavit filed by Hira Lai Naushad, Additional Secretary (Vigilance and Home) sworn on 13th July, 1992, it was stated that after completing investigation in F. I. R. No. 38 of 1991 (Shimla East) case had been forwarded for sanction of the Government, but no intimation had been received, nor sanction had been granted or declined. In view of this, respondent No. 1 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing whether any decision had been taken by the State Government in the matter of granting sanction. 16. On 22nd April, 1993, affidavit of Mr S. S. Chandel, Director, Social and Women Welfare, Himachal Pradesh was perused, wherein it was stated that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had decided not to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner with respect to case F. I R. No. 38 of 1991 registered at Police Station (East), Shimla. Since nothing was stated as regards the other F.1. Rs, respondent No. I was called upon to file a comprehensive affidavit. On 29th April, 1993 it was stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that an affidavit sworn by Mr. Thubdan Gomphel Negi, Additional Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had been received by him, but the same was neither in order, nor the same contained the requisite information called upon by the Court. Copy of the same was shown to us and it was noticed that it contained absolutely sketchy information. Consequently, Secretary (Home) was called upon to file complete and comprehensive affidavit as regards according sanction in the other cases. Arguments were again heard and the judgment was reserved. In the meanwhile, Shri Attar Singh, Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachai Pradesh filed an affidavit sworn on 5th May, 1993, which was defective. After removing office objections, it was actually received in the Court on 2nd June, 1993. 17. Arguments were again heard and the judgment was reserved. In the meanwhile, Shri Attar Singh, Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachai Pradesh filed an affidavit sworn on 5th May, 1993, which was defective. After removing office objections, it was actually received in the Court on 2nd June, 1993. 17. It is stated in the affidavit that in F. I. R.s No. 5 to 9 of 1992, investigation is almost complete. The information supplied in this affidavit is to the effect that: (a) In case F, I. R. No. 5/90, prosecution sanction on 29th June, 1991 was sought only against Uma Joshi, the Executive Officer and Lekh Ram, Clerk of the Child Welfare Council. Prosecution sanction against the petitioner was not sought by the Inspector General (Vigilance). (b) In case F. I. R. No. 6/90, the Director of Vigilance, Himachai Pradesh through Inspector General (Vigilance) on 29th June, 1991 asked for prosecution sanction against Lekh Ram, Clerk of the Child Welfare Council Sanction was not sought against the petitioner. (c) In case F.1. R. No. 7/90, the Law Department opined that no prosecution sanction is required against the General Secretary of the Child Welfare Council since she does not fall in the definition of Public servant. Though in this case, there is a prima facie case under sections 420, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. (d) In case F. I. R. No. 8/90, the challan is pending for scrutiny. (e) In case F I. R. No. 9/90, sanction to prosecute in view of the opinion of the Law Department has not been accorded, since no offence is alleged to have been made out. (f ) In case F. I. R.s No. 10 and 11 of 1990, the case is still pending for investigation. 18. The main plank of the argument of Mr. Sibbal, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations, as made in the First Information Reports, even if they are taken at their face value and are accepted in their entirety, do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. 18. The main plank of the argument of Mr. Sibbal, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations, as made in the First Information Reports, even if they are taken at their face value and are accepted in their entirety, do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Connected with this, his further submission is that since in six cases out of eight, investigation is C3m-plete, in those cases the allegations made in the First Information Reports and the evidence collected in support thereof do not disclose or make out any case against the petitioner for commission of any offence In addition to this submission, another ground which has forcefully been urged on the basis of the material on record was that the cases have been pot registered maliciously at the behest of respondent No. 2 with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to personal grudge by respondent No. 2 and as such being manifestly attended with malafide, proceedings deserve to be quashed. 19. Mr. K. D Sood, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has, in so far as the second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in seeking to quash the proceedings on the basis of malafide. contended that the allegations of malafide are not only baseless, but also founded on conjectures and surmises Respondent No. 2 Lad nothing to do either with the registration of the cases or with the investigation Investigation is being conducted by an independent department, over which respondent No. 2 has no control. The documentary evidence adduced on record in support of the plea of malafide by the petitioner is not sufficient to record any finding against respondent No. 2 and from the record, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 had any connection with registration of cases since as per the petitioners own showing, the complaint was made in writing by Mr. Lachhman Singh Bhatia, addressed to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court, which was forwarded by the High Court to the Chief Secretary through letter dated 31st May, 1990, Annexure P-14 and the record would further reveal that it was during the investigation of the said complaint that all cases were registered 20. Lachhman Singh Bhatia, addressed to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court, which was forwarded by the High Court to the Chief Secretary through letter dated 31st May, 1990, Annexure P-14 and the record would further reveal that it was during the investigation of the said complaint that all cases were registered 20. Additional Advocate General Pt Om Parkash Sharma on behalf of respondent No. 1 has vehemently contended that on receipt of the complaint Annexure P-13, which had been forwarded by the High Court to tbe Chief Secretary, inquiry in the said complaint was got conducted and during the progress of the inquiry, the cases were registered, on finding that circumstances disclosed commission of cognizable offences. Since prima facie, the First Information Reports disclose commission of offences, investigation into the same is necessary. It is the prerogative of the investigating agency to investigate the cases since the facts do disclose commission of offences Allowing the writ petition will amount to stopping the process of investigation and thereby rendering the right of the police to investigate negatory For the purpose of exercising powers either under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the First Information Reports and the documents accompanying therewith. It will not be permissible for the Court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations The allegations are such where tbe public interest also requires that investigation should continue and if ultimately no case is found to have been made out against the petitioner prosecuting agency will definitely submit the files for cancellation of the F. I. Rs. 21. Learned Counsel for the parties have taken us through the entire record. Record of the investigation in the cases has also been made available to us for our perusal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has by taking us through each First Information Report laid emphasis that the allegations therein, if they are taken at their face value and accepted, do not disclose any offence, atleast against the petitioner. Record of the investigation in the cases has also been made available to us for our perusal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has by taking us through each First Information Report laid emphasis that the allegations therein, if they are taken at their face value and accepted, do not disclose any offence, atleast against the petitioner. 22- Before we examine in detail, the contents of each F. I. R. and also advert to the allegations of malafide, we might refer to some of the judgments, which have been cited by the learned Counsel for the parties as to the scope of this Court of interference at this stage of the proceedings. 23 In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 Privy Council 18, the Judicial Committee strongly observed that if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the Police will have no authority to undertake an investigation These observations were made in order to qualify the statement of law that the judiciary should not interfere with the police, in the matters, which are within their province. 24. The Supreme Court, considering the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which corresponds to section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the First Information Reports, in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR I960 SC 866, held that where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged ; in such cases no question of appreciating the evidence arises It is a matter merely of looking on the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of Criminal Court to be issued against the accused persons. 25. The aforementioned being the settled legal position, we need not refer to number of other decisions cited at the Bar except by making reference to only a few others. 25. The aforementioned being the settled legal position, we need not refer to number of other decisions cited at the Bar except by making reference to only a few others. In State of U. P. through C B L S. P. E. Lucknow and another v. R. K. Srivastava and others, AIR 1989 SC 2222, the position of law was reiterated by holding that the well settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the F. I R. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such F I R. should be quashed. While reiterating this legal position and referring to the facts of the case, the Court held that the High Court had rightly held that since the criminal proceedings had been started on the basis of F I. R, which did not contain any definite accusation, it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and as such was liable to be quashed. In the said case, the two employees of the State Bank of India and one of its customer, holding current account, were charged with offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations made in the F. I R. were clear that the bank employees had no intention whatsoever to make any wrongful gain or to make any wrongful loss to the Bank in accepting certain cheques. The allegations made in the F. LR. or in the charge-sheet did not show that the bank employees or the customer had acted dishonestly, namely, acted with a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss nor did the allegations constituted any offence of cheating or forging. It was observed that at the most there was some delay in making the relevant entries. It was held that since F. I. R. did not contain any definite accusation, it amounted to an abuse of the process of Court. Order of quashing the criminal proceedings passed by the High Court was upheld. 26. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. It was held that since F. I. R. did not contain any definite accusation, it amounted to an abuse of the process of Court. Order of quashing the criminal proceedings passed by the High Court was upheld. 26. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, after referring to number of decisions, relating to exercise of inherent powers of the Courts under section 482 of the Code and the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interpreting some of the provisions of the Code, the apex Court categorised, by way of illustrations, the cases where power could be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court observed that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of cases, wherein power should be exercised, noted the following categories of cases, by way of illustration, for exercise of power, either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice : "1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 27. It is in the light of the observation made by the apex Court in the Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) that we would be approaching to the facts of the instant case, for which purpose first of all, we may notice the sub-mission made on the plea founded on the allegations of malafide. 28. Serious allegations have been made in the instant case by the petitioner, who herself has been holding a very high and responsible public office against respondent No 2, who equally is also holding very high and responsible position in the police hierarchy. It is not in dispute that on 25th February, 1991, Civil Suit No 7 of 1991 was instituted by respondent No l against the petitioner and against two reputed Newspapers, namely. Times of India and Indian Express for recovery of Rs 2,25,0Oo as damages, which is still pending adjudication. The suit is founded on the allegations made by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner with a malicious intention and with a view to malign and to injure his reputation has been making false and wreckless statement against him from time to time, knowing fully well that the said statements were wrong to her knowledge. The suit is founded on the allegations made by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner with a malicious intention and with a view to malign and to injure his reputation has been making false and wreckless statement against him from time to time, knowing fully well that the said statements were wrong to her knowledge. Reference is made to one of the news items published in the Indian Express in its issue on 6th March, 1990 to the following effect: "Stokes charge against B.S F. I G" "Shimla, March 5—The Himachal Pradesh Speaker, Mrs. Vidya Stokes, on Sunday, accused the Inspector General of B.S F., Mr. R. R. Verma, of having actively campaigned against her from the Theog constituency. She told newsmen here that Mr. Verma and his family had left no stone unturned to see her ouster from the constituency, Mrs Stokes won over her only Janta Dal rival by a slender margin. She said that the forest mafia had also campaigned against her.’ 29. After referring to the aforementioned statement, respondent No. 2 alleged that statement aforementioned was false to the knowledge of the petitioner, since neither he took any part in the elections to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha held in 1990 much less in the Theog Constituency, nor worked against the petitioner. 30. Reference has also been made by respondent No. 2 to another news item, which appeared in the Times of India on 15th December, 1990 under the caption "Two held in H P. arson case" s "The Vigilance Department has been investigating cases of alleged fraudulent payments and embazzlement of funds and has also registered cases against the former Speaker of the State Assembly and Congress leader Mrs, Vidya Stokes. Mrs. Stokes on her part has alleged that the Director General of Police, Mr R. R Verma is behind the frame-up. Mr. Verma denied her charge as baseless and figmeat of her imagination." 31. Respondent No. 2 after quoting the aforementioned News items has averred that he was neither, in any manner, connected with the enquiry or registration of case against the petitioner, nor with the investigation of the same. Statement made by the petitioner and publication of the report has been alleged to be malicious and defamatory. 32. Respondent No. 2 after quoting the aforementioned News items has averred that he was neither, in any manner, connected with the enquiry or registration of case against the petitioner, nor with the investigation of the same. Statement made by the petitioner and publication of the report has been alleged to be malicious and defamatory. 32. In para 4 of the plaint, allegations of malice have been stated by respondent No. 2 in the following words ; "That defendant No. 1 has been acting in a vindictive manner and has been harassing the plaintiff Even while she was Speaker of H. P Vidhan Sabha she abused the position and got the plaintiff transferred from Himachal Pradesh when to the best of his knowledge he was not on the offer list of officers to be sent on deputation at the relevant time In her letter of I 11th December, 1990, addressed to the Government H. P. she has admitted the said fact- The plaintiff was transferred outside Himachal Pradesh and he had to suffer mental strain, torture, loss of reputation and had to incur additional expenditure in maintaining two establishments. Defendant No. 1 had been making wild statements against the plaintiff and the two statements mentioned above were published by defendants No 2 and 3 as mentioned supra, the Indian Express and Times of India had vide publicity and by publishing the defamatory statements defendants have rendered themselves liable to pay damages to the plaintiff......." (Note : The plaintiff in the aforementioned quoted para refers to respondent No. 2 and defendant No. 1 refers to the petitioner). 33. First Information Reports No. 5 of 1990 to 11 of 1990 were registered during the pendency of the enquiry/investigation on complaint Annexure P 13 of Lachhman Singh Bhatia, when the said complaint was sent by the High Court on 21st May, 1990 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh through letter Annexure P14 The reports were registered on or about 22ad September, l990 The 8th F.I R No 38/90 was registered at Police Station, Chhota Shimla on 15th March, 1991 The allegations in brief, which the petitioner on mala fide has made against respondent No 2, have been quoted above. We are informed that the Civil Suit filed by respondent No 2 is still pending trial in this Court in its original civil jurisdiction In view of the fact that serious allegations have been made in the instant case by the petitioner against respondent No 2 and by respondent No. 2 in the Civil Suit against the petitioner and the allegations are sought to be supported on the basis of affidavits only, we feel that it shall not be appropriate for us to merely rely on the affidavits, in order to record our finding on such allegations We are not saying that the allegations made by the petitioner have no basis or foundation or that what respondent No 2 is saying by refuting those allegations is the whole truth, but in order to record any positive finding on the respective stands taken by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, as noticed above, it may not be possible to place reliance merely on the affidavits. Allegations require to be decided on taking evidence, which we are not inclined to take in the instant writ petition Otherwise also, recording of the finding in this case might cause prejudice, both the petitioner as well as to respondent No. 2, in the lair trial of the pending Civil Suit, where parties will have full opportunity in leading oral evidence as well. The Supreme Court iq Ram Satan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1967 SLR 771, noticing the seriousness of allegations made by the appellant therein against the responsible officers of the State, held that: "In a case of this kind where serious allegations are made by the appellant against responsible officers of the State, it may be desirable not to rely merely on affidavits, but to take evidence in Court that however is a matter which the High Court in its discretion wili have to consider. If the appellant wishes that he should be allowed to give evidence in support of his allegations the High Court may allow him to do so. In that extent the respondent also may be called upon to give evidence in rebuttal." 34. If the appellant wishes that he should be allowed to give evidence in support of his allegations the High Court may allow him to do so. In that extent the respondent also may be called upon to give evidence in rebuttal." 34. The course, which the Court should adopt in such like cases, where serious allegations of mala fides are made against the senior officers was also stated in a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court in D D. Suri v. A. K Barren and others, 1970 SLR 942 by observing that: We are wholly unable to understand how in the presence of all the allegations which had been made in the petition including those of mala fides by a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service against other senior officers and the State Government the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition limine by just writing the word dismissed. The High Court did not even call for affidavits in reply to the allegations contained in the petition This Court has repeatedly laid down (see Gian Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1945 Privy Council 18, following Ram Saran Dass v. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 SC 860, that in such circumstances the High Court ought to call upon the respondents to make a return and then consider whether allegations have been proved or not If it is found that the appellant has made reckless allegations which are not founded on facts it would be in the fitness of things to take suitable action against him But if on the other hand it is found that there is substance in his allegations there is no reason why the High Court should not grant him the necessary relief if a proper case is made out for doing so. It is quite possible that in a given case the proper course for a writ petitioner should be to seek relief if a proper case is made out for doing so It is quite possible that in a given case the proper course for a writ petitioner should be to seek relief by way of a suit if there are several disputed questions of fact but all these matters can be decided only if the petition is admitted and it is heard after the return has been filed by the respondents." 35. The view, which we are about to take that the petitioner otherwise deserves to be granted the relief prayed for in the instant case by making an order of quashing the F. I. Rs on different ground, we need not, for the same reason, record any finding on the serious allegations of mala fide lest any decision taken by us in the instant case, on the plea of mala fides might prejudice either the petitioner or respondent No. 2 in fair trial of the Civil Suit, where parties will have ample opportunity of leading evidence and the Court will record findings, which will be subject to scrutiny by an appeal Court, if the matter is taken up in appeal. 36. Before we take up of the First Information Reports separately, it will be necessary for us to refer to the Constitution of the Himachal Pradesh State Council for Child Welfare (hereinafter referred to as the Council) with whose functioning the petitioner has been associated as General Secretary and it is in that capacity that the aforementioned eight cases have arisen. It is not disputed that the Council is a voluntary organisation and is governed by its own Constitution Annexure P-3 The aims and objects of the Council are numerous, i.e. to promote generally the formulation and implementation of policies and programmes relating to welfare of children in Himachal Pradesh and coordinate activities and help the development of the Child Welfare Movement in the State ; to initiate, undertake, or aid directly or through its branches or affiliated bodies or indirectly any scheme for the furtherance of child welfare and to organise and to maintain institutions for the training of child welfare workers. 37. According to the Constitution and Memorandum of Association, the general body is the supreme Management and the affairs of the Council are vested in the Executive Committee, which is its governing body. This governing body is headed by the President, who is the Governor of the State. Vice President is the Lady Governor and its Chairman is the Chief Minister. Welfare Minister to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is the Vice Chairman. The petitioner is the General Secretary. Other prominent Government officials in the governing body are the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Education), Secretary (Welfare), Director (Welfare), Director (Education), Secretary to Governor, Director, Rural Development, as also some of the other heads of Departments of various Government Departments. Welfare Minister to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is the Vice Chairman. The petitioner is the General Secretary. Other prominent Government officials in the governing body are the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Education), Secretary (Welfare), Director (Welfare), Director (Education), Secretary to Governor, Director, Rural Development, as also some of the other heads of Departments of various Government Departments. It is the petitioners case that since the governing body consists of very high dignitaries, due to their pre-occupation, they cannot oversee and manage the Council on day to day basis and divert their attention to various welfare centres of the Council located in many far flung area of ths State, therefore, according to the Rules and Regulations, there is a Standing Committee appointed by the Executive Committee for the performance of day to day administrative function of the Council. The Standing Committee consists of Secretary (Welfare) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Director, Social and Womens Welfare, Himachal Pradesh Government, Secretary (Finance), Himachal Pradesh Government and the General Secretary. The petitioner being the member of Standing Committee is its honorary elected General Secretary. Decisions are taken by a majority vote. It is the executive committee, which authorises the General Secretary to incur recurring expenditure, provided it is a routine item of expenditure, involving no departure from settled policy. 38. The Treasurer and the Secretary are responsible to operate the bank accounts jointly. The Director (Welfare), Himachal Pradesh or the Joint Director (Welfare) or in his absence, Assistant Director (Welfare) is the Honorary Treasurer It is the responsibility of tbe Treasurer to present all financial statements, audited and unaudited, at all Executive Committee meetings Honorary General Secretary is the Chief Executive Officer of the Council Proper accounts are required to be maintained of all transactions to be audited annually 39. The Constitution and Memorandum of Association thus would show that it being a voluntary organisation is not a Government department or a statutory body, which is required to follow Rules and Regulations formulated or adopted by the State Government It has its own Rules and Regulations in the matters of administration and utilisation of funds and grants General body being supreme, otherwise it is the governing managing body, which is charged with the management of all affairs. Regulation 13 says that; "The general control of the affairs of the State Council shall be vested in the Executive Committee which shall be governing body of the State Council for the purpose of section 16 of the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860." 40. Regulations No 22 and 33 deal with and provide for the manner as to bow the affairs of the State Council are to be conducted in its day-to-day business and the functions are to be discharged by the Executive Committee. The Executive Council is also charged with the management of all functions, which vests in the Council. It is fully empowered to receive and disburse money and properties, both moveable and immoveable. Reading of the entire memorandum of association would show that no part of the same enjoin upon the executive committee or the standing committee a duty to follow any rules or regulations formulated by the State Government or to follow the norms set up by the State Government. In the light of this, we have to examine the allegations made in the First Information Reports. 41. Annexure P-l/A, F. I. R. No 5/90 pertains to the allegations that the petitioner in conspiracy with M/s. Basant Singh and sons, Shimla and other officials of the State Council had cheated the Council by forging documents and caused wrongful loss of about Rs. 5,200 to the State Council with corresponding gains to themselves and thus offence under sections 420, 467-468, 471-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them The allegations made in the F. I. R. are to the following effect: ". ... it has been revealed that two wooden and iron sheets structures were built at E V T C Kamla Nagar, Shimla, in January 19 6, under the orders of Smt. Vidya Stokes, the General Secretary of the Council. The structures are being used as bath rooms for the handicapped girls. For the construction of these particular structures no set norms have been followed The structures have been built through M/s. Basant Singh and sons, Shimla, for a sum of Rs 6,200 vide bill No. 1259, dated 3-1-1983. Payment for these bills was made on the same day in cash. For the construction of these particular structures no set norms have been followed The structures have been built through M/s. Basant Singh and sons, Shimla, for a sum of Rs 6,200 vide bill No. 1259, dated 3-1-1983. Payment for these bills was made on the same day in cash. According to the bill, timber and G. I. sheets have been used for these erections although material used at site is of very inferior quality and would have cost not more than Rs, 1,000 in normal course____.." 42. The next F. I. R. No. 6 of 1990, Annexure P-l/B is for the commission of offence under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 4^7-A of the Indian Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, l9W against the petitioner and other officials of the Council. The allegations are to the effect that the petitioner has shown disbursement of Rs. 4,800 in favour of one Shri Maghi Ram, Carpenter by way of salary from 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985. Though the carpenter is shown to have worked as a part time carpenter, but enquiry reveals that during this period, he was in regular employment of C. P. W. D. at Shimla and never worked, nor received any payment. The allegations in verbatim may be reproduced as under : "... it has been revealed that Smt. Vidya Stokes the General Secretary of H. P. State Council Welfare had shown a disbursement of Rs. 4,800 in favour of one Shri Maghi Ram, Carpenter, as his salary from 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985. This carpenter had been shown to have worked as part-time carpenter at E. V. T C Kamla Nagar, Shimla. On enquiry it has been found that Shri Maghi Ram was in regular employment with C P. W. D at Shimla from April 1984 to March 1935 and he had never worked as a part time Carpenter at E V T. C. Kamla Nagar, Shimla, during the said period and had also not received the payment mentioned in the bill." 43. The third case is F. I R No 7 of 1990, Annexure P-l/C regarding the purchase of a printing machine from Delhi firm for imparting training to the deaf and dumb It is alleged that the machine did not work even once for want of necessary accessories, which were required to be purchased alongwith the machine. The third case is F. I R No 7 of 1990, Annexure P-l/C regarding the purchase of a printing machine from Delhi firm for imparting training to the deaf and dumb It is alleged that the machine did not work even once for want of necessary accessories, which were required to be purchased alongwith the machine. The model purchased is an old and out dated one and can be operated only manually. Presently electrically operated models are in use. No set norms were observed and the price paid appears to be too high. The payment was made in March, 1985 and delivery of machine was taken in August, l->85. Thus, wrongful loss was caused to the Council by forging documents. The offences as alleged are under section 4 20/467/468/120 B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In order to appreciate the allegations, the following Js the verbatim reproduction of the F. I. R. : “......it has been revealed that printing machine was purchased in March, 1985 from M/s. Delhi Print Linkers, Chawari Bazar, Delhi, for Rs 20,856 to impart training to the deaf and dumb children at E V. T. C. at Kamla Nagar, Shimla. The machine has not worked even once, since its purchase because the necessary accessories were not purchased alongwith. Moreover, the actual requirement of the institution was to purchase an electrically operated model currently in use Whereas the model purchased is an old and out dated one and can be operated only manually No set norms have been observed for the purchase of this machine. The quotations are not genuine and have been fabricated to complete the formalities. The price of the machine is also stated too high than the price prevailing in the market at that time The payment of the machine was made in March, 1985 whereas the machine was delivered as late as August, 1985," 44. F. I. R. No. 8 of 1990, Annexure P-l/D relates to the misuse of her position, by the petitioner, in the recruitment and enrolment of 186 persons in various units of the Council, within the last 12 years i. e. from 1978 to 1990. It is alleged that no requisition was sent to the Employment Exchanges and appointments were not made, as is required to be done by the rules framed by the Himachal Pradesh Government. It is alleged that no requisition was sent to the Employment Exchanges and appointments were not made, as is required to be done by the rules framed by the Himachal Pradesh Government. The policy of reservation was also not adhered to by the petitioner. On the basis of the allegations, it is stated in the F 1 R that the petitioner, in discharge of public functions, has misconducted and thereby committed offence under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations in detail as made in the F I.R. are to the following effect: “.... it has been revealed that Smt. Vidya Stokes, the General Secretary of the Council has misused her official position as General Secretary of the Council in the matter of recruitment/ enrolment of the staff of different categories since 1978, As General Secretary she has employed/appointed about 186 persons in the Council and no requisition was ever sent to the Employment Exchanges for getting suitable candidates which is a must in the matter of employments. The constitution of the Council also demands that all such appointments are required to be done in accordance with the rules framed by the H. P Govt. The policy of reservation should also have been adhered to but no such record bad been maintained by the Council " 45. Next is the F. I R No. 9/90, Annexure P-f, in nut-shell pertains to the violation of norms and rules, which are generally required to be followed in the Government departments for inviting tenders, opening quotations etc. and conducting market survey. By not following the set general principles and not approaching the Controller of Stores, it is alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under section 13 (2) read with section 11 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged that there was a proposal in 1982 to instal a plant to manufacture Panjiri for distribution amongst the children in various centres being run by the Council After a protracted correspondence, the Indian Diary Corporation on 1st October, 1987 released a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. It is alleged that there was a proposal in 1982 to instal a plant to manufacture Panjiri for distribution amongst the children in various centres being run by the Council After a protracted correspondence, the Indian Diary Corporation on 1st October, 1987 released a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. The petitioner bad already got in touch with a firm M/s. Mixi Therm, which later on changed its name to Unique Mixers and Furnaces Pvt. Ltd. Neither any publicity was made to invite tenders or call quotations, nor any request was made to the Controller of Stores Market survey was not got conducted. It was more or less a personalised and private affairs of the petitioner. Only negotiations were held by correspondence. While executing agreements, no precautions were taken by obtaining guarantee for execution of the work. Though the land had become available on the spot, but matter of installing machinery was got unnecessarily delayed by not getting the construction work commenced. The Council entered into purposeless litigation with private persons and no effort was made by the petitioner to get the trival matters settled with the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, through her influence which she could have exercised as a Speaker, Vidhan Sabha. Thus, wrongful loss was caused to the Council. It will be necessary to quote verbatim allegations in this case also i "......it transpired that it was proposed in 1982 to instal a plant to manufacture Panjiri for distribution among the children in various centres being run by the Council After a protracted correspondence by the Council with H P. Govt. and with the Govt. of India, a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was released by the Indian Diary Corporation on 1-10-1987 vide their letter No. F/Gr-1/15-18178, dated 1-10-1987. In the meantime, when this correspondence was going on, the General Secretary, Mrs. Vidya Stokes had already got in touch with a particular firm M/s. Mixi Therm (which later changed its name to M/s Unique Mixers and Furnances Pvt. Ltd.) located in Thane, near Bombay in Maharashtra State. Neither any publicity was given by the Council to invite tenders/quotations