Honble KHAN, J.–The petitioners B.C. Brahmanna & Raj Kumar were at the relevant time, Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s. Swarna Cements Ltd. a Company manufacturing cement and having its Administrative office at Hyderabad (A.P.), (the Hyderabad Company). M/s. Rajasthan Refractories (P) Ltd. (the Jaipur Company) is also a private company manufacturing Refractory bricks, insulation bricks, Refractory concrete etc. and having its registered office at Jaipur (Raj.). The Transport Company, M/s. Associated Road Carriers Ltd., is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta and Head office at Secundrabad. Bal Raj respondent No. 2 was the Circle Manager of this Transport Co. at its Jaipur office. (2). On October 29, 1984 the Hyderabad Company placed an order with Jaipur Company for purchase of Refractory Bricks, insulation Bricks, Refractory concrete etc. worth Rs. 12,35,775.17 P. The terms and conditions agreed between the two, inter alia, included that the delivery of the goods shall be made at the factory site of the Hyderabad Co. at Mallacheruva village Kodak Taluka in Nalgoda district with- in 12 weeks from the date of letter of intent and the commencement of the first consignment shall start from the eighth week and the delay in delivery would attract penalty between 1/2% to 5% of the total cost of contract. It was further agreed that the goods would be of the standard, quality and specification as given in the schedule 1-B of the Purchase Order and the defective and faulty material shall have to be replaced immediately at sellers cost and therefore the material shall be thoroughly inspected by the Jaipur Co. at its place, before offering the same to Hyderabad Co. for inspection at laters site. It had specifically been agreed that the prices were inclusive of packing, forwarding, excise duty, sales-tax, Freight up to the factory site of Hyderabad Company and any other duties, charges etc. payable and also transit insurance. The Jaipur company was to guarantee the satisfactory performance of the contract as per Schedule. The Hyderabad Company had to make payment of Rs. 2,95,354/- in two installments, one with letter of intent and the other with purchase order. The balance price was payable against despatch of documents through their Banker, Canara Bank, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. The Hyde- rabad Co. had enclosed alongwith the purchase order a D.D. No. 31011578 dated 27.10.84 for Rs. 1,47,677/- in favour of Jaipur Co. towards advance. 2,95,354/- in two installments, one with letter of intent and the other with purchase order. The balance price was payable against despatch of documents through their Banker, Canara Bank, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. The Hyde- rabad Co. had enclosed alongwith the purchase order a D.D. No. 31011578 dated 27.10.84 for Rs. 1,47,677/- in favour of Jaipur Co. towards advance. (3). In the course and towards the performance of the contract dated 29.10.84 the Jaipur Co. consigned on 23.1.86 three truck load of fire bricks through the Transport Company at Jaipur vide consignment note Nos. 1473, 1478 and 1479 (Lorry receipts) pertaining to challan Nos. 138, 140 and 141. The goods had been sent at owners risk and was not to be detained, diverted, re- routed or re-booked without consignees Banks written permission. Consignees Bank was Syndicate Bank Malacheruva (A.P.). The lorry receipts issued by the Transport Company carried on them a notice to the effect that the consignment covered by the receipts shall be stored at the destination under the control of transport operator and shall be delivered to or, the order of, the consignee Bank whose name was mentioned in the Lorry Receipts and the goods will, under no circumstances be delivered to any-one without the written Authority from the consignee Bank or its order endorsed on the Consignee copy or on separate letter of Authority. Other terms and conditions mentioned in the Lorry Receipts issued by the Transport Company, inter alia, included the followings :– 1. Where a Bank has agreed to accept the Lorry Receipt as a Consignee/endorsee of holder thereof or in any other capacity for the purpose of giving advances to and/or collection of discounting bills of any of its customers whether before or after the instruments of the goods to the Transport Operator for carriage, the Transport Operator hereby agree in consideration of the same to hold themselves liable and shall be deemed to have held themselves concerned as if the Bank were a party to the contract herein contained with the right of recourse against the Transport Operator to the extent of the full value of the goods handed over to the Transport Operator for carriage storage and delivery. 4. The consignor shall be primarily liable to pay the transport charge and all other incidental charges if any at the head office of the Trans- port Operator in or at any other agreed place. 4. The consignor shall be primarily liable to pay the transport charge and all other incidental charges if any at the head office of the Trans- port Operator in or at any other agreed place. 6. The Transport operator shall have the right to dispose of other goods after 30 days arrival, after due notice in writing to the consignor the consignee Bank and the holder interested (including the Banker under clause 1 above). 8. Consignee Banks accepting Lorry Receipt under clause 1 above will not be liable for payment of any charges arising out of any lien of the Transport Operator against the consignor of the buyer where it becomes necessary for any Bank to obtain delivery of the consignment from the Transport Operator in terms of the Scheme, (because buyer does not retire the documents or because of any other reason). The Transport Operator shall deliver the goods unconditionally to the bank on payment of the normal freight and storage charges only in connection with the consignment in question, without claiming any lien on the goods in respect of any monies due by the consignor or the consignee to the Transport Operator on any account whatsoever. 9. Notwithstanding any statement made in this Lorry Receipt or any circumstance surrounding the issue of this Lorry Receipt, the Transporter is obligatory to the Consignee Bank named in the Lorry Receipt and shall be responsible for damage to the goods of consignment, that arises as a result of negligence default failure to take reasonable precautions, malafide or criminal or fraudulent actions of the Transport Operator or any of its Manager, agents Employees, partners, Directors or business associate or branches etc. (4). The goods of the three consignments reached the factory site of the peti- tioners between 26.1.86 and 1.2.86. It was at that point of time that dispute over unloading of the goods appears to have arisen between the parties. According to the petitioners since the goods was below standard and not upto the agreed specification, standard, and quality, they had refused to take delivery thereof but the drivers of the Transport Company unauthorisedly and without their permission unloaded the goods. But according to the Transport-Company the goods was left with the Hyderabad Co. in trust as the said Company could not produce the necessary documents, duly retired by the consignee Bank. But according to the Transport-Company the goods was left with the Hyderabad Co. in trust as the said Company could not produce the necessary documents, duly retired by the consignee Bank. Such dispute gave birth to the institution of Civil suits in the court of City Civil Judge, Hyderabad and to initiation of Criminal proceedings at Jaipur. (5). First, there was exchange of notices and reply to notices between the parties. Then the Jaipur Company filed F.I.R. No. 156/86 u/s. 420/407/120-B I.P.C. with police station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur against the Hyderabad Company. One Mr. Suraj Narain, a police officer at that police station, appears to have conducted the investigation of that case at Hyderabad. Reportedly that case failed to lead to the initiation of any criminal proceedings in the court against the petitioner and their Company. Thereupon, the Jaipur company appears to have executed a letter of Authority under Order 1 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in favour of the Transport Co. to institute a suit against Hyderabad Co. at Jaipur for recovery of the amount due from them and also to file a criminal case or prosecution against them. This letter of Authority was executed in consideration of Jaipur Companys having allegedly received Demand Draft No. 570143 dated 24.11.86 for Rs. 1,28,873-92 from the Transport Co. in full satisfaction of their claim against Bill Nos. 138 dated 23.1.86, 140 dated 28.1.86 and 141 dated 28.1.86 alongwith interest, reserving to themselves the right to claim the amount of balance 6% of Central Sales Tax from the Hyderabad Co. On the basis of this letter of Authority the Transport Co. first filed a Criminal Complaint giving rise to this petition in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur through its Circle Manager Balraj at Jaipur and then original suit No. 2188/88 in the Court of 4th Additional Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad thro- ugh its Head Office at Secundrabad. The Hyderabad Co. is also found to have instituted O.S. No. 260/89 against the Jaipur Company in the court of IInd Addl. Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. Both the suits are reported to be still pending in Civil Courts at Hyderabad. It is in this backdrop that the complaint in the present case came to be filed on 16.6.87 by the Transport Co. against the petitioners & the Company. (6). Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. Both the suits are reported to be still pending in Civil Courts at Hyderabad. It is in this backdrop that the complaint in the present case came to be filed on 16.6.87 by the Transport Co. against the petitioners & the Company. (6). Bal Raj, the complainant, filed the complaint with the allegation that the petitioners had entered into a contract with the complainant for transportation of three truck load of Fire Bricks etc. from Jaipur Companys godowns at Sodala to their factory and in the performance of their obligation under such contract the petitioners had loaded and the complainant had transported the three truck load of fire bricks to petition factory site at village Mallachuruvu for freight agreed to be paid by them, that on the arrival of the trucks at the factory site the petitioners, with dishonest and fraudulent intention, made false representation to the drivers of the vehicle to the effect that the relevant documents, namely, three G.P.E. notes would be given to them later on, got the goods unloaded in their godowns. It was also ave- rred that in any case a trust was created in favour of the complainant which trust the petitioners failed to discharge as per their promise. (7). After conducting enquiry u/Ss. 200, 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/Ss. 406, 420 I.P.C. and on 16.12.87 issued process u/s. 204 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and their Company. The petitioners challenged the order of the Magistrate before this court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 226/88. However, this court disposed of the said petition on 26.9.88 with the observations that the petitioners should first approach the trial court which would decide the objections relating to jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance of offences u/Ss. 406, 420 I.P.C. and summoning the petitioners as accused in this case as also justification of such an order in the facts and circumstances of this case after taking into account the documents as produced by the parties, with reference to Section 294 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties again, the learned Magistrate held on 30.3.90 that he was not competent to revise, review or sit in appeal against the order of taking cognizance of offences u/ss. 406, 420 I.P.C., as passed by his predecessor in office on 16.12.87. 406, 420 I.P.C., as passed by his predecessor in office on 16.12.87. He further held that since the petitioners had loaded the goods in the trucks of the Transport Company at Jaipur, a part of cause of action for filing complaint for offence u/s. 420 I.P.C. arise at Jaipur in Rajasthan & the Courts in Rajasthan as well as in Andhra Pradesh had jurisdiction u/s. 178 Cr.P.C. to try such offence. That is how the petitioners have again approa- ched this court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. (8). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the impugned order and its validity mainly on two grounds namely that since there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the complainant, no cause of action or even a part thereof ever arose to the complainant to file the complaint in Jaipur Court and that, in any case, the complaint was, on the face of it, false, frivolous and vexatious, filed with the oblique motive to harass and defame the petitioner through the forum of criminal court in Rajasthan. According to the learned counsel the continuance of the present criminal proceedings on the basis of such a complaint amounted to gross abuse of the process of law and of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur and were required to be quashed dropped forthwith. (9). Mr. M.R. Singhi, the learned counsel for Bal Raj Respondent complainant, tried his best to support the impugned order on the grounds mentioned in such or- der and further submitted that since a part of cause of action in respect of the offences u/ss. 406, 420 I.P.C. did arise at Jaipur, the learned Additional C.J.M. Jaipur had jurisdiction to try such offences. (10). It is well settled by now that the power of quashing a criminal proceedings should be exercised with great circumspection in rarest rare cases only, when it is seen that continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law/court. A roving inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness, or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, would not be justified at that stage of the proceedings. A roving inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness, or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, would not be justified at that stage of the proceedings. Ordinarily the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint should be accepted on their face value unless such allega- tions appear so absurd and inherently improbable that on their basis no prudent man can feel prima facie satisfied of the commission of any offence. But where criminal proceeding is, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana u/s. Bhajan Lal (1), ``manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spit him due to private and personal grudge the inherent power u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law brought about by such proceedings and to secure the ends of justice for the oppressed victim of such malicious proceedings. Since such a misadventure of a mischievous complainant not only causes unwanted and unjus- tified harassment to the accused through the forum of criminal court but also, in the final analysis, is likely to irreparably damage the very institution of criminal courts by lessening the faith of the people in such courts as forums of readressal of criminal wrongs to them, the inherent powers u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. should nay, must be exercised to prevent the misuse of the criminal courts and making them seats or forums of harassment to the people and the abuse of their process for bringing physical, monetary and other hardships to them. (11). Now coming to the objections raised by Mr. Bajwa I find that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that any part of cause of action to file a complaint against the petitioners for offence punishable either u/s. 406 or 420 I.P.C. arose to the complainant Bal Raj within the territorial limits of the criminal Court at Jaipur or, for that matter, of any other Court in the State of Rajasthan. A recap of the facts would clearly tell that the Hyderabad Company had entered into a contract of sale and purchase, of goods with the Jaipur company. A recap of the facts would clearly tell that the Hyderabad Company had entered into a contract of sale and purchase, of goods with the Jaipur company. Not only in the purchase order dated 29.10.84 it was clearly mentioned that the goods shall be delivered by the Jai- pur Company to the Hyderabad Co. at laters factory site at Mallachuruvu in Nalgvoda Distt. (A.P.) but also in the commercial terms & conditions in annexure `C, attached to the purchase order, it was specifically mentioned in para 1(C) under the head ``PRICES that prices were inclusive of, besides other charges, freight upto petitioners factory site in Mallachuruvu village. The Transport Co. was not at all in picture. There was no contract between the Hyderabad Co. & the Transport Co. for Transportation of the goods from the godowns of Jaipur Co. to those of the Hyderabad Co. in village Meelachuruva. The Transport Co. had to charge the freight from Jaipur Co. and not the Hyderabad Co. The three lorry Receipts issued by the Transport Co. mentioned the Jaipur Co. as consignor of the goods and Syndicate Bank, Meelachuruva as consignee. Condition No. 4 in such Lorry Receipts made the consignee liable to pay the freight and other incidental charges to the Transport Co. at his Calcutta Office or at any other agreed place. There was thus no privity of contract between the Transport Co. and the Hyderabad Co. The transportation of goods from the godowns of Jaipur Co. at Jaipur absolutely gave no cause of action to the Transport Co. or to its Manager at Jaipur against the petitioners and their company. (12). Sections 177 to 189 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1975 deal with jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 lays down the general principle and says that every offence shall ordinarily be inqui- red into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This section leaves the place of trial open. Section 178 deals with place of inquiry or trial and provides as under :– ``178. Section 177 lays down the general principle and says that every offence shall ordinarily be inqui- red into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This section leaves the place of trial open. Section 178 deals with place of inquiry or trial and provides as under :– ``178. Place of inquiry or trial-(a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (13). Section 178 visualizes the situations wherein an offence is, whether wholly or partly, committed in one and/or other local areas. Cases in which it remains uncertain as to in which of several local areas an offence was committed would fall under clause (a) and such cases may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Offences, partly committed in one local area and partly in another or which, being continuing offences, continue to be committed in more local areas than one or where they consist of several acts done in different local areas may similarly be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179 deals with the trial of those offences where an act is an offence by reason of any thing which has been done and/or a consequence, which has ensured. Court at the place where such act was done as also the Court at the place where the consequences had ensued would have the jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence. Section 180 speaks of the place of trial where act is offence by reason of its relation to other offence. (14). Section 181 deals with place of trial in cases of certain offences. Section 180 speaks of the place of trial where act is offence by reason of its relation to other offence. (14). Section 181 deals with place of trial in cases of certain offences. Its sub-section (4), which is relevant for our purposes, makes it clear that offences of Criminal misappropriations and criminal breach of trusts may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property, which is the subject of the offence, was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. The expression ``required to be returned or accounted for. Occurring in the language of sub-section (4) of Section 181 may mean that in case the goods sent from one place to another is, in the eventuality of its being returned, required to be returned at some other place and is not returned at such other place, the Court at such other place may enquire into or try the offence of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. But the cause of action in such a case, would arise in favour of the owner of the goods and not the transporter. (15). A reading of the above provisions leads to the position that courts having different local jurisdictions at different places may have the jurisdiction to inquire into or try the same offence in the eventualities contemplated by the above provisions. But the cause of action should not only accrue in the local jurisdictions of such different courts but also must arise in favour of persons competent to maintain such actions. In the instant case since there existed no privity of contract between the petitioners and the complainant with regard, either to any obligation under the contract of sale or purchase of any goods or the transportation thereof, no cause of action for filing a complaint either for offence u/s. 406 I.P.C. or u/s. 420 I.P.C. arose to the complainant within the local jurisdiction of the courts at Jaipur or for that matter, in Rajasthan. The learned Magistrate was therefore, not competent to take cognizance of either of the two offences or any other offence on the complaint by Bal Raj complainant against the petitioner & their Company. (16). On merits too, the Transport Co. The learned Magistrate was therefore, not competent to take cognizance of either of the two offences or any other offence on the complaint by Bal Raj complainant against the petitioner & their Company. (16). On merits too, the Transport Co. had no case at all to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners in a court at Jaipur. As per the purchase order the Jaipur Co. had undertaken to send the goods to the Hyderabad Co. by road transport. The choice of a particular Transport Co. was of the Jaipur Co. and not of the Hyderabad Co. The Lorry Receipts issued by the Transport Co. clearly stated that goods was to be transported at owners risk. Irrespective of the fact whether property in the goods had passed or had not passed from the Jaipur Co. to the Hyde- rabad Co., the Jaipur Co. & not the Hyderabad Co. was the owner of goods. (17). The statements of Bal Raj complainant in his examination u/s. 200 and that of his witness Hari Om u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. run contrary to the statement in the Lorry Receipts and the plaint filed in O.S. No. 2188/88 in the Civil Court at Hyderabad and are, on the face of it, absurd and inherently improbable, besides being against normal trade practice. In para 3 of the plaint, filed by the Transport Co. in the Court of IVth Additional Distt. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, it was clearly averred that the goods was booked by the Jaipur Co. for Mallacharuva and the consignee copies of the consignment notes were endorsed in favour of Syndicate Bank Jaipur, which in its turn had endorsed such documents in favour of Canara Bank Hydera- bad. This clearly shows that the Hyderabad Co. had no occasion or business to enter into any sort of contract with the Transport Co. for transportation of the goods from Jaipur to Mallacharuvu. (18). Apart from the absurdity and inherent improbability in the version of the Transport Co., as pointed out above, the complaint was manifestly attended with malafides. The copies of the notices, exchanged between the Jaipur Co. and the Hyderabad Co., indicate that the Hyderabad Co. was not satisfied with the quality of goods being sent to it by the Jaipur Co., which had also not allegedly performed its contract as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Under such circumstances the Hyderabad Co. The copies of the notices, exchanged between the Jaipur Co. and the Hyderabad Co., indicate that the Hyderabad Co. was not satisfied with the quality of goods being sent to it by the Jaipur Co., which had also not allegedly performed its contract as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Under such circumstances the Hyderabad Co. could have no intention to play any fraud upon the Transport Co. to obtain the sub-standard goods. The Hyderabad Co. would, instead, insist upon not receiving the goods at all. Under such circumstance, it was the Transport Co. which, of its own, left the goods at the factory site of Hyderabad Co. in clear violation of the terms contained in the ``notes given in the Lorry Receipts issued by it to the Jaipur Co. According to the clear recitals in the `notice, the Transport Co. was duty bound not to have delivered the goods to anyone without the written authority of the Consignee Bank i.e. Canara Bank Hyderabad. It could not have created a further trust of the goods, which was with it in trust from the consignee, in violation of the terms and conditions entered into by it with the consignor and the consignee Bank. As per condition Nos. 6, 8 & 9 the Transport Co. had a right to sell the undelivered goods within 30 days after its arrival at the destination after due notice to the consignor and the consignee Bank and it was duty bound to pay the sale proceeds, as reduced by freight and demarrage, to the consignor or other claimant including the Bank. Since the Transport Co. did not act in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed by itself on it and the consig- nor, it had to settle its account with the Jaipur Co. by delivering a draft of Rs. 1,28,878.92 on 24.11.86. It may be pointed out here that before settling the accounts, the Jaipur Co. had tried to prosecute the Hyderabad Co. but such attempts having remained fruitless, it settled its account with Transport Co., leaving it free to proceed against Hyderabad Co. in Civil/Criminal Court, as liked by it. The cause of action, if any and if at all, to launch civil and/or criminal proceedings against the Hyderabad Co. had arisen at Mallacheruva in Hyderabad and the Transport Co. but such attempts having remained fruitless, it settled its account with Transport Co., leaving it free to proceed against Hyderabad Co. in Civil/Criminal Court, as liked by it. The cause of action, if any and if at all, to launch civil and/or criminal proceedings against the Hyderabad Co. had arisen at Mallacheruva in Hyderabad and the Transport Co. had its Head Office at Secundrabad with its General Manager Sri R.K. Goel residing at Hyderabad. Two courses were however, adopted simultaneously. A criminal complainant, through Bal Raj complainant (holder of power of attorney) was got filed in a criminal court at Jaipur and a civil suit being O.S. No. 2188/88 by Kailash Mittal, another power of attorney holder, in a civil court at Hyderabad. to confer jurisdiction upon the criminal court at Jaipur not only a contradictory but a false and malicious version of the Hyderabad Co. having loaded the goods in the trucks at Jaipur was given in the complaint. At the cost of repetition it may well be remembered that a similar attempt had been earlier made by Transport Companys predecessor in title i.e. the Jaipur Co. and had failed. The Criminal complaint was designedly filed with the ulterior and oblique motives to put pressure on the Hyderabad Co. The forum of the criminal Court at Jaipur was adopted for wreaking vengeance on the Hyderabad Co. (19). The above discussion, I think, makes the present case squarely fall within guidelines Nos. 5 & 7, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana u/s. Bhajan Lal (supra), and as extracted in the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar (2). For ready reference those guidelines may be reproduced here :- 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. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spit him due to private and personal grudge. (20). In view of the above it is held that the version given in the complaint filed by Balraj against the petitioners and their Co. (20). In view of the above it is held that the version given in the complaint filed by Balraj against the petitioners and their Co. suffers from absurdity and inherent improbabilities and, therefore fail to make out any case for offences either u/s. 406 or u/s. 420 I.P.C. The criminal proceedings launched on the basis of such a complaint are manifestly attended with malafides and have been maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for harassing a public limited Co. and its officers, for no fault of theirs, carrying on its business in a far away territory in South India, through the process of a criminal court at Jaipur. A court in Rajasthan was not having even civil jurisdiction in the matter what to speak of criminal jurisdiction. The process of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has been obviously abused for the achievement of the above said oblique motives. Such proceedings deserve to be quashed forthwith. (21). Instances of abuse of the process of the criminal courts in the State are showing alarmingly rapid growth. More often than not disputes of pure civil nature are brought before the criminal courts only to put pressure on the other side with a view to expedite the attainment of a remedy for civil wrong. Negative police reports submitted after thorough and lengthy investigation are put at naught by a shrewd & mischievous complainant by filing a regular complaint and examining himself u/s. 200 and his witnesses u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. Cognizance of offences are taken by Magistrates on the footing of the rule that at that stage of the proceedings they are not to weigh and sift the evidence. That is right but that rule does not debar them from looking at the manifest absurdities and inherent improbabilities in the case put up by the complainant before them. Before acting upon exparte evidence in such cases and putting the wheel of criminal prosecution into motion they are expected to be alive to the avoidable, uncalled for, undesired and unmerited difficulties and miseries that their orders may bring to the innocent victims of the process of their courts. It is particularly so when the person or persons to be subjec- ted to such process reside outside of their local jurisdictions. It is particularly so when the person or persons to be subjec- ted to such process reside outside of their local jurisdictions. They must observe not only great care & caution in summoning persons as accused from remote territories in the country but also exercise judicial restraint never ignoring the fact that unjustified departure from the rule of care & caution and judicial restraint may bring their institution to disrepute, robbing, at the same time, the people of their faith in it. (22). In the instant case, as has been discussed above, the Criminal proceedings, launched on the basis of a totally false, frivolous and vexatious complaint, have been found as having been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for bringing unlawful pressure on a public limited Company carrying on its business in the remote areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Warrants for arrest and release were issued against the petitioners. After putting in appearance by them in court exemption to them from personal attendance and appearance in court though their could was opposed tooth and nail despite observations of this court to adopt liberal attitude in such matters. When the court proceeded to adopt liberal attitude and adjourned the hearing, on cost of Rs. 100/- to the complainant, the Magistrate was contemptuously rediculed for having fixed the price of his court at Rs. 100/- only. (see order sheet dated 1.10.89). It is very painful to see that a public limited company, fed on and running its transport business with the money collected from the public at large, was wasting the public money, entrusted to it, in launching false and frivolous criminal prosecution of another public limited company without any reasonable cause thereby forcing the later company also to waste public money on defending itself against a malicious litigation. Observing such facts of this case, in the course of arguments, I had asked the learned counsel for the complainant to address the court on the point as to why cost be not imposed upon the complainant for not only making a false, frivolous & vexatious complaint but also wasting the time of the lower court as well as this court in such false litigation. No satisfactory answer/explanation could be given to the querry posed by the court. No satisfactory answer/explanation could be given to the querry posed by the court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this particular case and also taking note of the fact that for the last 10 years or so this false litigation has been carried on for the harassment of a public limited Co. and its officers and to the wastage of the time of the court of Magistrate as well as this court imposition of exemplary costs on the complainant u/s. 359 is expedient in the interest of administration of criminal justice and is necessary to check the evil of abusing the process of the court inten- tionally with ulterior motive and without reasonable ground. Independently of the provisions contained in Sections 250, 357, 358 and 359 Cr.P.C., to be applied in proper cases for the purpose, the inherent powers of this Court u/s. 482 r.w. Sec. 483 Cr.P.C. empower this court to adopt such a course and impose appropriate costs in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law/courts and thus secure the ends of justice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (23). In the result the criminal proceedings, instituted and being continued and carried on against the petitioners and their Hyderabad Company on the basis of the complaint filed by Bal Raj Respondent No. 2 in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur Distt. Jaipur for offence u/ss. 406, 420 I.P.C., are hereby qua- shed and terminated. The petitioners and their Company are discharged of the offences u/ss. 406, 420 I.P.C. and the complaint is dismissed with costs at Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand). The amount of cost shall be paid by Balraj, complainant to the High Court Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan within four months from today. If the amount is not paid it shall be recovered treating this direction as decree of the court by the High Court Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Addl. Registrar shall communicate this order to the said Board. (24). A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Registrar of Companies, Calcutta for information and necessary action, if deemed proper.