A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS amongst others have been arrayed as accused persons in G. R. Case No. 652 of 1991 on the file of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda (in short, SDJM ). In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code) challenge is to the order passed by the learned SDJM taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, TIPCT), and directing issue of process/n. B. W. against the petitioners. The said G. R. case has its genesis in Jankia P. S. Case No. 120 of 1991 registered on the basis of report lodged by driver of a vehicle bearing registration No. A TO 1188 (truck) which was on its way to Vijayanagaram. The vehicle met with an accident near village Malipada and immediately thereafter some residents of the said village forcibly removed the entire load of 133 bags of tilli seeds which was being carried in the truck and assaulted the driver and other persons travelling in the truck. Specific name of any person was not given in the first information report. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against 29 persons including the petitioners. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, even if the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation are taken into consideration in their entirety, they do not make out any case so far as they are concerned, to substantiate accusation of commission of offence punishable under Sec. 395, IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioners at the relevant point of time were serving at Surat in the State of Gujarat, and have been erroneously shown as absconders and have been falsely roped in. The learned counsel for State with reference to records submitted that there are materials so far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, but accepted that there is total lack of materials so far as other petitioners are concerned to show that they are involved either directly or indirectly in the incident giving rise to initiation of criminal proceedings. The learned counsel for State with reference to records submitted that there are materials so far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, but accepted that there is total lack of materials so far as other petitioners are concerned to show that they are involved either directly or indirectly in the incident giving rise to initiation of criminal proceedings. ( 3 ) IN R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash proceedings: (i) When it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against institution or continuance, e. g. want of sanction. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with the last case it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is dearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, mayor may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of. the Code the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not, that is function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression of needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to shortcircuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Sec. 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court, may exercise its power under Sec. 482 of the Code relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by the Apex Court are as follows: (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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegation finds 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. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR 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 Sec. 155 (2) of the Code. (5) 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. (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 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. The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. See Janata Dal etc. v. HS. Chowdhuri, etc. Every High Court as the highest Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. But being an extra-ordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court of its powers. See Dr. Raghubir Sharon v. State of Bihar. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. See Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others. ( 4 ) FROM the principles laid down in various cases referred to above, and a large number of other cases, it is clear that where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if 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, and where the uncontroverted allegation made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not either disclose the commission of any offence and! or make out a case against the accused, interference under Sec. 482 of the Code is permissible. Tested in the touch-stone of aforesaid principles, it is clear that the continuance of trial against the petitioners 3 to 5, namely, Kella Patra, Bala Fatesingh and Surendra Dalai alias Odendaray would be sheer abuse of process of Court, and ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed so far as they are concerned. Accordingly, the proceeding is quashed so far as they are concerned. The petition is dismissed so far as petitioners Aintha Behera and Madhu Behera are concerned. The application is disposed of. Petition dismissed. .