A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also Govern the disposal of Misc. Cri. Case No. 2007/87 (Harmesh Malhotra v. Teetu Singh) ( 2 ) BOTH these petitioner have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. and assail the issuance of process against the applicants on private complaint filed by the non-applicant Teetu Singh. ( 3 ) FACTUAL matrix is rather jejune. The applicant in the present case is a song writer. The applicant in the connected aforesaid case is a Film Producer and Director. The non-applicant Teetu Singh claimed to be real composer of the songs in question. It is alleged that the applicant Anand Bakshi falsely and evilishly appropriated the songs, authored by the complainant, to his own name and credit in Film Nagina and other co-accused acting in concert, conspired with the applicant in this criminal activity. The complainant thus filed the complaint under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against both the applicants of these two petitions and also one M. Khan. On 27. 8. 1987, the Court took the cognizance, registered the case and ordered to issue the process. Bailable warrants for appearance in the Court were thus, issued. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders, the applicants have filed the aforesaid separate petitions. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, Senior counsel for the applicants - accused and Shri Jai Singh for the non-applicant-complainant I have also heard Shri G. Desai, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1077/88. ( 6 ) IT is strenuously urged that the complaint or the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P. C. did not disclose any specific material justifying registration of the case and issuance of the process against the applicants. ( 7 ) IN Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, it is held as under: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 allegat on as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that 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 case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. ( 8 ) IN 1992 (I) MPWN (30)2, it is observed that:it is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the Proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion, No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complainant on the very face of it, does not disclose any offence against the accused. ( 9 ) IN Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konialgi and others3, enough light is shed as to when the order issuing process against the accused can be quashed: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 complainant 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 capricised and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or in admissible; and 4. Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricised and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or in admissible; and 4. Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such at, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. ( 10 ) IT is trite position of law that Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and one cannot be asked to face the ordeal and suffer the torture for number of years. On the other hand, prosecution is inevitable where the allegations make out the case and disclose essential ingredients of the offences as alleged. After all, law is the means, justice the end. And law must be seen to be on talking terms with justice. Prosecution yes, persecution, no. This is the essence. ( 11 ) FACED with the aforesaid facts as also the ant opt to agree with the applicant that the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court where the applicants if they so choose may make the appropriate application regarding the dropping of the proceedings and demolition of the order of registration of the offences and the Trial Court should be left free to decide the question in accordance with law. In my view, this approach seems to be just, proper and fair. ( 12 ) ON the circumstances, both these petitions are disposed of with the observations that the applicants shall be free to move an application before the Court below in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court with the prayer for quashment of the proceedings. In the event of such an application being filed, that Trial Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Trial Court or the parties shall not feel in any way tied down by any observation made herein. ( 13 ) THE applicants shall also be at liberty to file an application in the Trial Court as regards the exemption from personal appearance in the Court on reasonable grounds as may be available to them and in that even the Trial Court shall decide the application in accordance with law. The Trial. Court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the applicants till the disposal of the application as above. The Trial. Court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the applicants till the disposal of the application as above. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 5/2/1993. The accused persons may, however-appear through their duly appointed counsel till the disposal of the application for exemption which they may choose to move and thereafter, they shall act according to the direction as may be given by the Court below. ( 14 ) THE Registry is directed to return the records of the Court below immediately so as to reach positively in the Court be on well in advance of the date fixed for appearance of the parties as indicated above. Petition disposed of accordingly. .