The petitioner has filed this revision invoking this Court's inherent power for quashing the order dated 7.8.91 and order dated 9.7.93 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati in Case No. 1202c/91. 2. The petitioner's case is that a complaint case was filed before the Magistrate, Guwahati, stating, inter alia, that on 27.5.86 the complainant executed a hire purchase agreement for taking a sum of Rs. 24.000/- for the purpose of purchasing a truck from the petitioner who carries on business under the name and style of M/s RC Financier, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. As per the said agreement a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was to be paid in 12 instalments and in accordance with that the complainant paid about Rs.37,000/- in instal­ments to the accused and obtained receipt thereof. On 10.7.91 the petitioner along with some other undesirable persons came and demanded Rs. 25.000/-more from the complainant-opposite party. In reply, however, the opposite party informed that he had paid the entire amount taken from the financier in purchasing the vehicle. The complainant further stated that the accused became angry and uttered some nasty words to the complainant and when the complainant protested, the accused along with others had beaten the complainant. After two days the accused-petitioner taking advantage of the absence of the complainant trespassed into his house and uttered nasty words to the wife of the complainant. Apprehending that the situation might turn from bad to worse, the wife of the opposite party locked the door from inside when the accused-petitioner went away. Again on 22 7.91 the petitioner came with two other persons; entered the house of the complainant and threatened the complainant to finish him and rap; his wife, if the amount were not paid. On receipt of the complaint, the initial statement of the opposite party was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate called for a report from the OC, Geetanagar PS who submitted the Annexure III report. The OC also reported similar facts with little variation. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. Against that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A notice of motion was issued and on receipt of notice the counsel for the opposite party Mr. G. Gopal has entered appearance. 4. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Gopal, learned counsel for the opposite party. 5. Mr. Against that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A notice of motion was issued and on receipt of notice the counsel for the opposite party Mr. G. Gopal has entered appearance. 4. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Gopal, learned counsel for the opposite party. 5. Mr. Sahewalla submits that the dispute if there be any, is of a civil nature and just to avoid payment the opposite party has filed the complaint petition. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that the story narrated in the complaint petition is absolutely absurd and the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending before the Magistrate will amount to abuse of the process of Court and thereby the petitioner will be unduly harassed. Filing the complaint the opposite party has degenerated the criminal Court into a weapon of harassment and, therefore, the entire proceeding should be quashed. In support of his argument Mr, Sahewalla has drawn my attention to a decision of :he Supreme Court in Trilok Singh & others vs Satya Deo Tripathi reported in AIR 1979 SC 850 . This case relates to a dispute between the parties in connection with purchase of a truck on hire purchase. The allegation in the said case was that the accused obtained signature on blank sheet of paper, etc. In that case the Supreme Court held that obtaining signature of a person on blank sheet of paper by itself was not an offence of forgery. It becomes an offence when the paper is fabricated into a document of the kind which attracts the relevant provisions of the Penal Code making it an offence or when such a document is used as a genuine document. The Supreme Court further held thus: “.....Even assuming that the appellants either by themselves or in the company of some others went and seized the truck on 30.7.1973 from the house of the respondent they could and did claim to have done ,-o in exercise of their bonafide right of seizing the truck on the respondent's failure to pay the third monthly instalment in time. It was, therefore, a bona fide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the truck." In my opinion this case is not applicable in the instant case. It was, therefore, a bona fide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the truck." In my opinion this case is not applicable in the instant case. In the said case there was a hire purchase agreement and on the failure to get the payment the financier seized the vehicle] That may be in terms of the agreement and if that was so, it would be a civil dispute. But in the present case the complainant stated that the petitioner went to the house where he not only threatened the complainant but also threatened to rape his wife. This statement, if true, cannot be said to be a part of the agreement. 6. Mr. Sahewalla has also drawn my attention to another decision of the Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Augre & others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 . In the said case the Apex Court held that the legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The Court further held thus: "......the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 7. The last case cited by Mr. Sahewalla is the case of State of Haryana & others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lai & others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . In the said case the Supreme Court observed that a High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under section 482 CrPC interfere in proceedings relation to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It can do so 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 or where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 or where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence or where the allegations made in the FIR 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 or 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 or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. 8. Mr. Sabewalla has given much emphasis on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable. According to Mr. Sahewalla the allegations of uttering abusive words to the complainant and his wife are absolutely improbable and this was incorporated in the complaint petition just to make out a case. 9. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court, if the allegations made in the complaint petition are so improbable that no Court can on the face of it believe commission of such offence, the High Court should in such appropriate cases quash the proceeding. 9. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court, if the allegations made in the complaint petition are so improbable that no Court can on the face of it believe commission of such offence, the High Court should in such appropriate cases quash the proceeding. But in my opinion the allegations regarding utterance of the accused and the threatening given by him and his companions to the opposite party and his wife cannot be said to be improbable. Whether these allegations are true or not requires evidence and that can be done only at the trial stage. 10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent power of this Court as held by the Supreme Court in State of Harayana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lai (supra). The inherent power of the High Court should be exercised in the rarest of rare cases. I do not think this case falls within the categories indicated by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceeding. Let the trial proceed. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, before charge the petitioner shall have the right to address the Court and the Court shall also consider whether on the basis of the evidence a charge should be framed or not Petitioner and the opposite party shall appear before the trial Court on 3.1.94 and thereafter the Court shall issue notice to the other accused and fix a date for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses before framing of charge. The petition is dismissed.