JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Through this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint Case No. 746/ 6-2 followed by First Information Report No. 214 of 1991 under sections 336/419/420/448/500/506/360/363/511/34, Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. Before dealing with the specific contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to make mention of the case. 2. Complainant (respondent 1) filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra complaining, inter alia, that he is the Principal of International Sahaja School, Talnoo, Dharamshala Cantt, imparting education from Class I to Class V in this school with boarding facilities. Students belong to India, Canada, Australia, U. S. A. Italy, Switerzerland, France, Austria and Germany, From this complaint, paragraphs 4 and 5 are being quoted since they pertain to the petitioner specifically : “4. That the accused persons who represent different Newspapers of France, in order to cause indue harassment to the students and staff of the complainant, wanted to obtain information about the students thereby exposing them and endangering their lives and did this through cheating by personification to trespass on the premises of the complainant They also published baseless, false and defamatory and damaging articles in the French Newspapers thereby causing panic among the parents of the students who now want to withdraw their children from this school, which may lead to closing down of this school, causing huge financial loss and damage the reputation. That they have been further threatened to publish misleading photographs if students are not sent back immediately," "5. That on 16-5-1991, accused No. 1 stating to be the relation of one French student of Class II, by the name of Yoann Durand and that he has been sent by his parents, visited the school at about 10.00 a m. took the student from the class room and spoke to him in french till 1.30 p. m. After he left, the student was very upset and was in a state of chock and did not have proper meals that day and did not utter even a single word. That the student was threatened by the accused No. 1 and had fear in his mind. It was learnt by the complainant later on that accused No. 1 was not sent by the parents of the student nor he was having any relation with him. That the student was threatened by the accused No. 1 and had fear in his mind. It was learnt by the complainant later on that accused No. 1 was not sent by the parents of the student nor he was having any relation with him. Thus the accused No 1 has trespassed on the premises of the school with dishonest intention and has cheated the complainant by impersonation.” 3. Further, it has been stated that due to the action of the accused, the complainant started receiving frantic telephone calls and letters from the parents of the students who felt disturbed by the reports published in French Newspapers that the children were not being treated properly as seen by these reporters personally. The children were not allowed to go out, they were sick and were not being given proper treatment. The parents became worried and anxious to learn about the welfare of their wards and some of them wanted to withdraw their children from this school on the basis of these false, baseless and misleading news reports. The accused also threatened the parents and the complainant for publishing further misleading reports, in case the children were not sent back immediately and the school closed. All the students belong to well-to-do families and all the accused intended to hold at ransom the complainant and the parents after obtaining personal information about the students and their families under false pretexts. The accused had mala fide intention in visiting the school premises and publishing distorting facts in the French Press thereby offending the standards of journalistic ethics and acting without sense of responsibility simply to elevate their own requirements of image building. All the accused were not, therefore, vigilant and careful about the integrity of the source of news forgetting their responsibility towards the society Thus, the accused have deliberately malign the well-established reputation of the school endangering the lives of the children and their families by exposing them the danger of kidnapping and ransom and persuading them to run away from the school with the accused without the knowledge of the school authorities The accused extended false information of being the relations of the students. 4. Defamation case was also filed in French Court which was dismissed by the Original and the Appellate Courts. The petitioner was not made party to it. 5. 4. Defamation case was also filed in French Court which was dismissed by the Original and the Appellate Courts. The petitioner was not made party to it. 5. On June 20, 1991, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra passed the following order: “Present Counsel with complainant. Forwarded to SHO Dharamshala for investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. P. C." Consequently, on June 20, 1991, First Information Report No. 214 of 1991 for offences under sections 336/419/420/448/500/506/360/363/511/34, Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Dharamshala. After investigating the matter, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on November 5, 1991. It reads as under: “l. Case diary and the investigation report prepared by Nathu Ram S. I. Office In Charge out Post Fasterganj perused by me. 2. The investigation so far does not disclose any cognizable offence and therefore the cancellation report is to be submitted which I am submitting herewith. 3. The investigation has been supervised from time to time. In short the facts of the case are that on 19-6-1991 Shri Brahma Nand Banerjee, Principal, Shahjah International School, Talnoo at Dharamshala Cantt, came to the police station and informed orally that the school is run by Shri Yogi Mahajan. Last year between 16-5-1991 to 19-5-1991, the school was visited by two Indian nationals and three foreign nationals and they told that they have come from Delhi with permission of Shri Yogi Mahajan, whereupon the Principal did not object their visiting the school and allowed them to enter into the school Out of them two persons took the paragraphs of the children and the staff and specially the French boy named Yoann and talked to him in French language, by which Master Yoann remained disturbed and he stopped eating and drinking and that is why the child was sent back to France by the Principal The Principal told the police that now a telephone message has come from Yogi Ji that he had not permitted anybody to visit the school and therefore he wants the police action against those persons now. Thereupon the police told the Principal that according to his own version no cognizable offence is made out and the police cannot do anything in the matter. Thereupon the police told the Principal that according to his own version no cognizable offence is made out and the police cannot do anything in the matter. Thereafter the Principal filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dharamshala on 20-6-1991 whereupon the learned CJM passed the order to register and investigate the case under section 156 (3), Cr, P. C. According the orders of the court the police registered case crime No 214 of 1991, dated 20-6-1991 under sections 290, 419, 420, 363, 511, 500, 506/34,1. P. C, According to the complainant the prosecution is that on 165-1991 Mr. Philippe came to the school and told the Principal that he is the relative of Master Yoann a student from France and he has been sent to him by his parents. He talked to Master Yoano for about 3-1/2 hrs in French and then went away. On 17-5-1991 an Indian National named Baldev came to the school and told the Principal that he has been sent there by the French Government since they have heard about the fame of the school. Thereupon he took photographs of the children, staff and the school. On 18-5-1991 another Indian national Mr. Pavlo of GAMMA came to the school and told that he is a friend of the said Baldev and he also told that he has also been sent by the French Government and that he has been sent to take photographs and report about the school since the French Government wants to send more students to this school. Since they want to open up a school on the same lines in France, he also took photographs of Master Yoann. On 19-5-1991 another foreign national Dieter Ludwig and a foreign woman Miss Collette came to the school and they also told that they have heard about the school and they want to know about the running of the school so that they may also send their children to the school. But most of the time they talked to Master Yoann. By visits of the aforesaid five persons to the school. Master Yoann remained very much disturbed. Thereafter the Principal received telephones from the parents of Master Yoann that the boy is not getting proper education and he is not being looked after properly. About this the reports were also published in the French newspapers. By visits of the aforesaid five persons to the school. Master Yoann remained very much disturbed. Thereafter the Principal received telephones from the parents of Master Yoann that the boy is not getting proper education and he is not being looked after properly. About this the reports were also published in the French newspapers. Besides telephones, the Principal also received several letters. All the five accused persons visited the school without the permission and took photographs of the children and the staff and they wanted to take away Master Yoann foreibly to their country. The case was investigated by ASI Nathu Ram Officer in Charge Police Outpost Fasterganj. During the investigation it was found that all the five persons are Press Reporters and Photo-grahers and they entered the school with the permission of the Principal and took photographs with his permission and they talked to Master Yoann in the presence of the Principal and the staff with their consent The photographs of Master Yoann were also taken with their permission. In this school Indian children and foreign children study These persons were sent by the French Government to visit the school, It has been found during the investigation that none of the five persons tried to abduct the child nor did they threaten anybody to kill. About this case an opinion was sought from the ADA and he also opined that no cognizable offence is made out in the case. As per investigation report and the opinion of the ADA this final report is being submitted for cancellation of the case. It is therefore requested that the case be rejected and the file be consigned to the record room.” 6. On this report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra passed the following order on June lt 1992: "1/6/92 Present : Counsel for the complainant, I have gone through the record of the case and the objections filed by the complainant on the final police report. In view of the facts narrated in the objections, the case file is ordered to be returned to Superintendent of Police Kangra District at Dharamshala for re-investigation and report, within a month.” The matter was re investigated and the Investigation Officer filed the following report on July 11, 1992: "2. In view of the facts narrated in the objections, the case file is ordered to be returned to Superintendent of Police Kangra District at Dharamshala for re-investigation and report, within a month.” The matter was re investigated and the Investigation Officer filed the following report on July 11, 1992: "2. The case was re-investigated and during investigation it was found that all the five journalists visited the school with the permission of the Principal, the complainant and it was also found that the photographs of the children and the school were taken with his own permission When the case was put up in the Delhi High Court, the counsel of the Journalists produced photographs in the Court and in those photographs the photograph of the Principal was also there. It is clear by these photographs that whatever happened inside the school it was all done with the consent of the Principal and therefore there is no case of criminal trespass. The other allegation is with regard to cheating. That is also not proved since all the journalists disclosed their identity correctly and there is no case of impersonation. Neither they made any attempt to kidnap the child nor abdficted him. It was also found that the Principal himself took Master Yoann to Delhi on 23-5-1991 and from there he sent him to France by flight on 25-5-1991. And therefore there is no case of kidnapping. The commission of any cognizable offence has not been found during the entire investigation. Whatever has been published in the French newspapers, at the most it can be a case of defamation which is not a cognizable offence," "3. The final report was earlier submitted to the court of CJM on 15-11-1991. It is therefore requested that in view of the said report, the final report be accepted and the case be cancelled and necessary orders may be passed." On October 29, 1992, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra passed the following order: "28-10-1992 Present : Advocate for the complainant. I have gone through the record of the case minutely and heard the learned Counsel for the complainant. Shri B. M. Banerjee filed a complaint in this court on 20-6-1991 against five accused persons under sections 336/419/420/448/500/506/363/361/511, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. which was forwarded the same day by this Court to S H. O. Police Station Dharamshala for investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. Shri B. M. Banerjee filed a complaint in this court on 20-6-1991 against five accused persons under sections 336/419/420/448/500/506/363/361/511, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. which was forwarded the same day by this Court to S H. O. Police Station Dharamshala for investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. P. C, on the basis of which F. I. R. No. 214/91, was registered with the Police Station Dharamshala on 20-6-1991. The case was first of all investigated by A S.I. Shri Nathu Ram who collected sufficient evidence about the commission of criminal offence of various kinds by the accused persons. Thereafter, on the basis of that evidence, Dharamshala Police went to Delhi to arrest the accused persons, but when they came to know that one of the accused Baldev through his counsel, Shri Y. C. Maheshwari of Delhi under the order dated 1-10-1991 of learned J. M. I. C. (I) Dharamshala, inspected the record of the investigation and thereafter, he moved an application under section 438, Cr. P. C. in the Honble High Court of Delhi which application was dismissed on 31-10-1991. From the perusal of the record, I find sufficient evidence against the accused persons and despite the case file being returned by this court for reinvestigations, the local police for the reasons best known to them has undone what they had earlier done on the face of the record thereby itself falsifying investigation which is a serious matter, so far as the conduct of the investigation of such serious cases by the police is concerned that aspect of the matter shall be considered by the court at the trial of the case. I do not agree with the final cancellation report of the police and on the basis of the material on the record in exercise of the powers vested in this court under section 190 (I) (b), Cr P. C. I take cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 419/448/ 500/506/363/511 read with section 34, I. P. C. against all the accused persons Let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety each in the like amount be issued against them returnable by 28 12-1992. Case be registered. 5,000 with one surety each in the like amount be issued against them returnable by 28 12-1992. Case be registered. Notice be issued to the learned A. P. P to take charge of the case file on 28-12-1992" It is this order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra which is subject-matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner. 7. It may be recorded that accused Mr. Baldev, Mr. Pavlov Bartholomus and Mr. Dister Ludwig had challenged the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra dated October 29, 1992 through Cr. M. P. (M) Nos. 1305/92, 647/93 and 672/93 in this Court separately. By decision of December 27, 1994, learned Single Judge did not feel inclined to exercise inherent powers at that stage since all the accused had opportunity to approach and advance submissions before the Magistrate that material on record did not justify framing of charge against them. In matters where same relief could be granted by a subordinate authority, normally higher authorities should not exercise its powers to give them same relief. The petitioners in these cases were given opportunity to move the trial Court at the appropriate stage for bringing end to the trial. It appears from this judgment that the learned Judge took this line on the understanding that issuance of notice summoning the accused was an ex pane consideration of the complaint or the material collected during investigation or inquiry and was interlocutory in nature and the Magistrate could take definite view of the matter when all the parties were before him. Since the petitioner was not before the learned Judge in these three cases, therefore, he has assailed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra independently through this petition. 8. Looking to the decision of D. P Sood, J. in these three cases touching questions of entertainability of this kind of petition for quashing of proceedings at the stage of issuance of notice to the accused, at this stage being interlocutory in nature and leaving him to make submissions before the trial Court, learned Chief Justice felt inclined to refer this matter to the larger Bench This is how it has come before us. 9. Shri A K. Goel contended that the whole approach of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra in dealing with this matter is legally untenable against the petitioner. 9. Shri A K. Goel contended that the whole approach of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra in dealing with this matter is legally untenable against the petitioner. In the whole complaint only one paragraph relates to the petitioner Referring to paragraph 4, it was submitted that the same was general in nature and fantastically vague It does not point out what article was published by the petitioner against the complainant, the institution, the students and the parents As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not do any such thing, therefore, these allegations do not pertain to him. Adverting to paragraph 5 of the complaint, it was pointed out that the petitioner, admittedly, disclosed his identity and the same was well-known to the complainant who had not shown as to whom the petitioner met in the school premises and to whom he mis-represented, when, admittedly, the boy did not utter even single word Consequently, there was no question of the complainants knowing whether the boy had been threatened as alleged. The petitioner had visited the school with the permission of the complainant and spoke to Master Yoann in the presence of the complainant This stand of the petitioner is fortified by the report of the Investigating Officer, For extraneous reasons, the complainant felt offended and initiated false proceedings against the petitioner who had no nexus or connection with the other accused. The petitioner has been seriously harmed by these proceedings since he is a very senior and seasoned Correspondent covering international events of public importance and interest all over the world for the general dissemination of news to the public at large. The investigation carried out by the police on the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra plainly demonstrates that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Apart from this conclusion, the complaint does not disclose commission of any crime by the petitioner. The complaint is vexatious and mala fide. The petitioner has been dragged into this litigation whimsically and arbitrarily despite discharging his journalistic duties fairly and with transparency. He is in no wav connected with the reports published in newspapers or magazines as alleged. 10. Apart from this conclusion, the complaint does not disclose commission of any crime by the petitioner. The complaint is vexatious and mala fide. The petitioner has been dragged into this litigation whimsically and arbitrarily despite discharging his journalistic duties fairly and with transparency. He is in no wav connected with the reports published in newspapers or magazines as alleged. 10. The learned Advocate General also assailed the impugned order and submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under section 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code after having rejected the report of the Investigating Officer The impugned order could not be passed on the rejected material and there was no other material available with the Magistrate to issue process against the accused under section 190 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code which required recording of complainants statement and statements of other witnesses before summoning the accused after coming to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the accused Reliance was placed on AIR 1968 SC 117, Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra 1970 (1) SCC 496, R. N. Chatterji v. Havildar Kuer Singh and (1973) ILR (HP) 25. K. S Karai v. The State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also took this stand. 11. Shri T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel for the complainant faintly submitted that Magistrate could take cognizance of the case under section 190(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and not under section 190 (I) (c) since reference to this provision was a mistake for section 190 (I) (b) in Abhinandan Jhas case (supra), as clarified in AIR 1989 SC 885 M/s India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another. 12. We do not propose to deal with this aspect of the matter of the learned Advocate General since the learned Counsel for the complainant opposed this petition mainly on two grounds, namely, that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and cannot be interfered with by this Court. 12. We do not propose to deal with this aspect of the matter of the learned Advocate General since the learned Counsel for the complainant opposed this petition mainly on two grounds, namely, that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and cannot be interfered with by this Court. The petitioner can agitate it before the trial Court appropriately as held in AIR 1982 SC 784, Khacheru Singh v State of U.P. and another ; 1995 Cri LJ 562, Uttam v. The State of Maharashtra and others and 1995 (2) Rec CR 551, Reeta v. Praveen Sharma, and that this is not a fit case for exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, In opposition to this plea, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to some decisions. Two such decisions are AIR 1977 SC 2185, Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others and AIR 1978 SC 47, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra. 13. Having examined this question, we are of the considered opinion that order of summoning the accused to face the trial cannot be termed interlocutory in nature The policy of law is to avoid entertaining cases which are purely interlocutory in nature so that unnecessary litigation is avoided in the Court Procedural orders which do not affect the rights of the parties on merits may fall in the category of interlocutory orders. But, an order which visits a person with serious consequences, does not fall in this category. Where the facts do not disclose commission of offence by the accused, Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance Issuance of process in such a case is not only without jurisdiction but may amount to causing harassment through Court process, Why should a person be called upon to face a trial when there is no material pointing out commission of crime by him. Issuance of process, in these circumstances, is candidly illegal and it would be wrong to call it an interlocutory order. Contention that the accused can claim before the Magistrate that no process could be issued against him since no case was made out against him, cannot be accepted for the reasons stated above. Issuance of process, in these circumstances, is candidly illegal and it would be wrong to call it an interlocutory order. Contention that the accused can claim before the Magistrate that no process could be issued against him since no case was made out against him, cannot be accepted for the reasons stated above. Besides, taking this view of the matter may deprive the High Court of the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which the legislature has preserved and which the apex Court has permitted to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines laid down in many decisions being mentioned in the latter part of this judgment Consequently, the decisions on which reliance was placed by the complainant, do not take different line than those referred to by the petitioner. 14. The next question is whether this Court can step in to quash the proceedings in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the facts and circumstances of this case. By now, there is catena of cases answering this question in the affirmative. We may refer to some of them 15. In AIR 1960 SC 866, R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court had, without being exhaustive, laid down three circumstances when inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings can and should be exercised. Further, Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Bench, observed that: "Cases may also arise 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 evidence arises; it, is a matter merely of looking at 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 the criminal court to be issued against the accused person.” 16. In AIR 1975 SC 495, The Delhi Development Authority v. Sardari Lal and the State, the apex Court said that : “.........In an appropriate case it may be, rather, is permissible to protect a person from illegal and vexatious prosecution by grant of an appropriate writ or in exercise of the inherent or revisional powers of the High Court.............” 17. In AIR 1975 SC 495, The Delhi Development Authority v. Sardari Lal and the State, the apex Court said that : “.........In an appropriate case it may be, rather, is permissible to protect a person from illegal and vexatious prosecution by grant of an appropriate writ or in exercise of the inherent or revisional powers of the High Court.............” 17. In AIR 1977 SC 1489, State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and others, the apex Court speaking through Y.V. Chandrachud, J., as he then was, while discussing the power of High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code quashing a proceeding, said that (para 7 at p. 1492): “........In the exercise of the wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that sailient jurisdiction. 18. It would be relevant to quote paras 8 and 9 of this judgment since they deal with the question of conspiracy and the jurisdiction of Court under section 561-A of 1898 (corresponding to section 482 of 1973 Code): "8. 18. It would be relevant to quote paras 8 and 9 of this judgment since they deal with the question of conspiracy and the jurisdiction of Court under section 561-A of 1898 (corresponding to section 482 of 1973 Code): "8. Let us then turn to the facts of the case to see whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings against the respondent ought to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and in order to secure the ends of justice. We asked the State counsel time and again to point out any date or material on the basis of which a reasonable likelihood of the respondents being convicted of any offence in connection with the attempted murder of the complainant could be predicted. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with the crime, howsoever skilfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole. There is no material on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict the respondents for any offence connected with the assault on the complainant. It is undisputed that the respondents were nowhere near the scene of offence at the time of the assault. What is alleged against them is that they had conspired to commit that assault. This, we think, is one of those cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement of the accused is lacking. We have been taken through the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation and the other material. The worst that can be said against the respondent on the basis thereof is that they used to meet one another frequently after the dismissal of accused No. 1 and prior to the commission of the assault on the complainant. Why they met, what they said, and whether they held any deliberations at all, are matters on which no witness has said a word. In the circumstances, it would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the respondents. The High Court was therefore justified in holding that for meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed." "9. In the circumstances, it would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the respondents. The High Court was therefore justified in holding that for meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed." "9. Learned Counsel for the State Government relies upon a decision of this Court in R. P Kapur v. The State of Punjab, (I960) 3 SCR 388 : AIR 1960 SC 866, in which it was held that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of 1898, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not. That may be so. But in the instant case the question is not whether any reliance can be placed on the veracity of this or that particular witness. The fact of the matter is that there is no material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the respondents are in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution, Gajendragadkar, J , who spoke for the Court in Kapurs case observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Courts inherent jurisdiction The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by section 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacked of a rigid formula." 19. High Court does not ordinarily interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding pending in a subordinate Court, The inherent powers possessed by it under section 482 of Cr. P C can be invoked and exercised only when the facts alleged in the complaint if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged. P C can be invoked and exercised only when the facts alleged in the complaint if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged. (See: AIR 1978 SC 1590, P. Vijayapal Reddy and others v. The State (Government of India and 1977 Cri LT 1416, Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Om Parkash Alipuria) 20. In AIR 1982 SC 949, State of West Bengal v Swapan Kumar Guha9 it was held that (at pp. 971 and 972): “............... the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the cases and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted,............Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and providing an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice become necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book in the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to be serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to be serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed..........." 21. In AIR 1988 SC 709, Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others etc., it has been said that (at p. 711, para 1) : "7. 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 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 a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 22. in AIR 1989 SC 2222, State of U. P through C. B I. S. P. E. Lucknow and another v. R K Srivastava and others, it has been held that if the allegations contained in the First Information Report 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 a report should be quashed. This principle has been propounded in many other decisions holding that the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the First Information Report do not constitute an offence and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. This principle has been propounded in many other decisions holding that the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the First Information Report do not constitute an offence and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 23 In para 108 of AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana and others v. Ch Bhajan Lal and others, S. Ratnavel Pandian, J, speaking for the Court, laid down seven categories of cases by way of illustration where powers under Article 226 ot the Constitution or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Of course, clearly pointing out that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly definite and sufficiently chennalised and enforceable guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of marked kinds of cases where such powers should be exercised. The circumstances laid down are: "(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) Where the allegations made in the F, I. R. or complaint are so absured 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. (5) Where the allegations made in the F, I. R. or complaint are so absured 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 malicious instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of F I. R. was not justified." (See also JT 1995 (7) SC 299, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another)” 24. Now, we turn to the case in hand. We examined the contents of the complaint and the material collected during the investination of this case. The allegations in the complaint do not constitute commission of the crime by the petitioner He visited the school premises and talked to the pupil with the permission of the complainant The investigation further reveals that the witnesses examined under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not stated anything against the petitioner making him liable for the commission of the alleged offences, There is no evidence of the petitioner trying to abduct the pupil, entering the school by impersonation or being responsible for publication in newpapers and magazines in France nor there is evidence of nexus or connect ion with the other accused in this case. Final report submitted by the police also discloses that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The complaint is thoroughly vague and fantastically absurd. Final report submitted by the police also discloses that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The complaint is thoroughly vague and fantastically absurd. It is vexatious and initiated for extraneous considerations It is impossible to imagine that the petitioner would enter the school without disclosing his identity to the Principal and harass the pupil when the object of the visit was to know about his welfare. Permission and presence of the Principal has come in evidence. In case the behavior of the petitioner was obnoxious, harassing and offending bringing the same within the parametre of the offences alleged against him, the matter should have been reported to the police immediately Filing of complaint after a month demonstrates that the complaint was filed after due deliberations, complainant having been piqued by certain publications in France about the pupils and the institution resulting in clamour by the parents about the welfare of their children. Before summoning the accused the trial Court failed to notice the material constituting offence against the petitioner and reasons for not accepting the final report of the police and proceeding to summon the petitioner thereby acting mechanically and without application of mind. 25 The aforementioned facts plainly indicate that issuance of process against the petitioner is completely illegal. It is a fit case where the complaint and the proceedings against him are quashed in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 111 of the Constitution of India, otherwise, continuance of this lame prosecution would amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court and harassment of the petitioner in a case which is to end in acquittal. Directing the petitioner to place his case before the trial Magistrate and get his discharge would defeat the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. 26. No other point was urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 27. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The complaint and proceedings in the complaint Case No 746/6-2, First Information Report No. 214 of 1991, B. N. Banerjee v. Mr. Philippe and others, for offences under sections 336/419/420/448/500/506/360/363/511/34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner are hereby quashed.