JUDGMENT 1. - By this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition submitted under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the petitioners prayed that the entire proceedings pending in Complaint Case No.15/93, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, including the order dated 8.6.1993, passed by the said Court be quashed and set aside. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, vide his order dated 29.3.1993, suspended Dr. Rameshwar Sharma, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan and appointed the Petitioner No.1, under Section 12(7) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 to carry on the functions of Vice-Chancellor on a stopgap arrangement in addition to his own duties. Relevant portion of the order is as below: "Further in exercise of powers vested under Section 12(7) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946, I appoint Prof. T.K.N. Unnithan, P-3, University Campus, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to carry on the functions of Vice-Chancellor on a stop-gap arrangement in addition to his own duties." 3. On 30.3.1993, the petitioner No.2, who is Registrar of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued a Notification, which reads as below: "The Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 12(7) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946, has been pleased to appoint Professor T.K.N. Unnithan as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan to carry on the functions of the Vice-Chancellor." 4. That, on 3.6.1993, the Non-Petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 120-B, 167, 170, 218, 418 and 420 I.P.C. against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, with the allegations that the petitioner No.1 was not appointed on the post of Vice-Chancellor, but his appointment was to carry on functions of Vice-Chancellor on a stop-gap arrangement in addition to his own duties, and as such he was/is not entitled to get salary and other facilities attached thereto and thus has been causing financial loss of about Rs. 17,000/- p.m. to the University of Rajasthan every month; that it is the duty of both the petitioners to see that the University should not suffer any pecuniary loss by their action; that the complainant is a member of senate and member of the University; and the petitioner No.1 was formerly the Vice-Chancellor, from 1982 to 1985 and, therefore, is well-conversant with the functioning, powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor, that the petitioner No.2 issued a notification dated 30.3.1993, under the direct influence and with the express consent of the petitioner No.1, that the Petitioner No.1 was a party to the conspiracy in the issuance of the notification dated 30.3.1993; that the petitioner No.1, after joining as the acting Vice-Chancellor instructed the petitioner No.2 to present him a draft-proforma of the Notification and accordingly, the Non-Petitioner No.2 prepared the draft-proforma of the Notification and presented the same for approval of the petitioner No.1; that the Petitioner No.1, thereupon, deleted certain words therefrom and added certain other words; that the Petitioner No.2 was aware of the fact that on account of corrections/amendments, the draft of the proposed Notification had become illegal and a faulty document as it diluted the intentions and effect of the original order passed by the Chancellor; that the Petitioner No.2 in conspiracy with the Petitioner No.1 added the following words in the Notification dated 30.3.1993, which were not used in the order of Chancellor, dated 29.3.1993: "As Vice-Chancellor of the University of Raj." 5. He also deliberately omitted from the Notification the following words, which were mentioned in the order of Chancellor. "on a stop-gap arrangement in addition to his own duties." 6. That the Petitioner No.2 by addicting and omitting the aforesaid words in its Notification dated 30.3.1993, had materially altered/diluted the form and effect of the order passed by the Chancellor, that the petitioner No.1 has been abusing the office of Vice-Chancellor on the strength of the Notification dated 30.3.1993, and has been pretending himself as a regularly appointed Vice-Chancellor, though he had been appointed as an interim measure by way of stop-gap arrangement and has been making use of such powers which are not ordinarily available to the Vice-Chancellor. Further that on account of the said Notification, an impression has been sought to be created that the petitioner No.1 has been appointed on regular basis, whereas he was appointed to carry on duties of Vice-Chancellor. It was prayed that the petitioners be punished for the offences under Sections 120-B, 218, 167, 170, 418 and 420 Indian Penal Code. 7. On 7.6.1993, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, sent the aforesaid complaint to the S.H.O. Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present application for quashing the complaint submitted by the non-petitioner and also the aforesaid order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on several grounds and prayed that the same be quashed and set aside without making any investigation. 8. Mr. N.K. Joshi put appearance on behalf of the complainant and contested the application.It has been argued by Mr. Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners that even if the contents of the complaint are taken on their face value, they do not make out any offence as alleged by the complainant. By sending the complaint to the S.H.O. Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, the Trial Court has permitted the Non-Petitioner to make abuse of the process of the Court so as to harass and humiliate the petitioners. He argues that substantially there is no difference in the order of Chancellor and the Notification issued by Petitioner No.2. From the Notification dated 30.3.1993, it is clear that the Petitioner No.1 was appointed under Section 12(7) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946. Mr. Sharma submits that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to humiliate and harass the petitioners and to paralise the administration of University. 9. He argues that the complainant has no locus standi to file any complaint against the petitioners. Mr. Sharma further submits that the dispute regarding payment of salary and grant of other facilities to the Petitioner No.1 is of a civil nature, which cannot be determined in the criminal complaint and if the complainant was of the view that the Petitioner No.1 is getting salary, allowances and other facilities, for which he was/is not entitled, he should have filed a suit for injunction and should have obtained injunction order from the proper Court. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint are contradictory and vague and on the basis of this, no prudent person can reach to the conclusion that there are sufficient reasons for proceeding with the investigation. He prays that the proceedings of Criminal Case No.15/1993, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, including the order passed by the said Court be quashed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Joshi, Counsel for complainant non-petitioner argues that from the allegations mentioned in the complaint, prima-facie it appears that the petitioners committed various offences. He argues that at this stage, the Court is not required to see as to whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or false. This is a matter of investigation. In support of his arguments, Mr. Joshi cited certain authorities, but it is not necessary to refer them, as the law is very much settled. Mr. Joshi further submits that the complaint has been filed in public interest and not on account of any ulterior motive. He prays that the application should be dismissed and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, be directed to make investigation. 11. From the complaint of the complainant-non petitioner, it appears that the allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner No.2, in conspiracy with the petitioner No.1, issued Notification dated 30.3.1993, in which certain words were added and certain words were omitted to cause financial loss to the University of Rajasthan. On the basis of this Notification, the Petitioner No.1 has been receiving salary and other benefits for which he is not entitled and thus causing financial loss to the University of Rajasthan of near about Rs. 17,000/- every month. 12. Section 12(1) of the University of Rajasthan Act provides that Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor. 13. Section 12(7) of the aforesaid Act reads as below: "12(7) When a temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice Chancellor occurs by reason of leave, illness or otherwise, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall carry on the office of the Vice-Chancellor. Where, however, there is no Pro-Vice-Chancellor or he is also temporarily absent, the Syndicate shall forthwith report the same to the Chancellor who shall make such arrangements for carrying on the office of Vice-Chancellor as he may deem fit." 14. Where, however, there is no Pro-Vice-Chancellor or he is also temporarily absent, the Syndicate shall forthwith report the same to the Chancellor who shall make such arrangements for carrying on the office of Vice-Chancellor as he may deem fit." 14. This fact is not disputed that the Chancellor, vide his order dated 29.3.1993, suspended Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, Vice-Chancellor of University of Rajasthan and appointed the petitioner No.1 to carry on the functions of Vice-Chancellor on stop-gap arrangement in addition to his own duties. The Petitioner No.2 also issued Notification under Section 12(7) of the University of Rajasthan Act, mentioning therein that the Petitioner No.1 has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of University of Rajasthan to carry on the functions of the Vice-Chancellor. In my opinion the Notification is substantially in conformity with the order of the Chancellor. From Para No.6 of the complaint, it appears that the Notification dated 30.3.1993, was issued by the Petitioner No.2 with the consent of Petitioner No.1, whereas in Para No.7 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the petitioner No.2 sent draft of Notification to the Petitioner No.1 who after amending the same, sent to the Petitioner No.2 and the same was issued in conspiracy between both the petitioners. In my opinion, the allegations made in the 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 petitioners. Furthermore, whether the Petitioner No.1 has been paid more salary and other emoluments or has been getting more facilities for which he is not entitled; is a question of civil nature, which can be decided in a Civil Court. If the intention of the complainant was to save the University from the financial loss, the complainant should have approached the Civil Court and should have obtained injunction order but it appears that the complainant was prejudicial against the petitioners or was interested in pressurising the petitioners, hence he filed the complaint. 15. In Chand Dhawant (Smt.) v. Janahar Lal and Others, reported in (1992)3 S.C.C. 317 , the Apex Court held as under. 15. In Chand Dhawant (Smt.) v. Janahar Lal and Others, reported in (1992)3 S.C.C. 317 , the Apex Court held as under. " This Court has in various decisions examined the scope of the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, and has reiterated the principle that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case wherein such power should be exercised." 16. As I have already held that the allegations made in the 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. Under these circumstances, the complaint submitted by the non-petitioner deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, I am also of opinion that from preventing the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary that the complaint should be quashed under the Provisions of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 17. Consequently, I allow the misc. petition submitted by the petitioners and quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.15/1993, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and also the order dated 8.6.1993, passed by the said Court.Petition allowed. *******