JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for getting quashed the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 31/89 (199/91) pending against the petitioners in the court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. The petitioners are the Directors/Officers of M/s. Geoffrey Manners & Company Ltd. Bombay, which is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing various kinds of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and toiletries. ANACIN is a well known drug manufactured and marketed by this company. 3. Ram Niranjan, respondent No. 2 runs his family business at Sikar (Rajasthan) in the trade names of M/s. Rama Pharma and M/s. Rama Drug Stores, Anacin is also sold by him at his said business premises: 4. On November 19, 1985 Ram Niranjan, respondent, filed a complaint in the court of the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, against the petitioners and eight others alleging therein that on a complaint, made on May 5, 1976 by the petitioners or somebody else on their behalf, who may be an employee of their company, to the Drug Controllers, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, regarding unauthorised and/or misbranded manufacture of ANACIN, certain Drug Inspector of the Drugs Directorate in Rajasthan made surprise checks and searches on 17.8.76 and 8.10.76 of the business and residential premises of the respondent whereupon 188 Anacin tablets only were found in his possession and no raw material, machineries, implements and other articles, required to manufacture Anacin drug were found. It was averred in the complaint that the petitioners and/or their men had falsely charged the respondent for having committed an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder with intent to cause injury to his reputation knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for making such a charge against him. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint Under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the police for investigation. The police investigated the case twice. No offence either Under section 211 or Under section 500 Indian Penal Code was found committed by the petitioner and/or their men. The complaint, alleged to have been made to the Drugs Authorities in Maharashtra and Rajasthan by the petitioners and/or their men, was not traceable. The police, therefore, submitted Pinal Reports Under section 169 Criminal Procedure Code in the case. The complaint, alleged to have been made to the Drugs Authorities in Maharashtra and Rajasthan by the petitioners and/or their men, was not traceable. The police, therefore, submitted Pinal Reports Under section 169 Criminal Procedure Code in the case. However, the learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 1.4.89, took cognizance of the offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners and eight others as accused thereunder. On a revision preferred Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners, the learned Addl. Session Judge, Sikar, by his impugned order dated 26.4.95, confirmed the order of the Magistrate. Hence this petition Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. At the very outset the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the order of the learned Magistrate has already been revised Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and therefore, a second revision of the same order in the garb of inherent powers of this court Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not permissible in law. Agreeing to this submission in principle Mr. S.R. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, urged that the exercise of the powers of this court Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code do not stand barred or curtailed in a case, in which gross abuse of the process of the court is evident and the present case is an exceptional instance of such abuse. After having heard the learned counsel for both sides I feel inclined to agree with Mr. Bajwa. 6. It is settled position of law that powers Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are extra ordinary powers of this court and should be sparingly exercised in rarest of rare cases only where abuse of the process of court is required to be prevented and/or interest of justice is to be secured. Such powers are to be exercised with circumspection and great care and caution. In cases where gross abuse of the process of court is evident and injustice to a party is likely to perpetuate powers Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised despite an order having been revised Under section 397 by the appropriate court. 7. In the instant case the petitioner as also eight others have Deen summoned to answer the accusation for offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code for their preferring a false charge against respondent No. 2. 7. In the instant case the petitioner as also eight others have Deen summoned to answer the accusation for offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code for their preferring a false charge against respondent No. 2. Absence for just and lawful ground is an essential ingredient for making out an offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code. The words "false charge" occurring in the language of Section 211 must not be understood in any technical or restricted sense. They are required to be understood in the ordinary meaning of false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it. An application or petition made with the object of bringing to the knowledge of authorities concerned certain matters regarding which the applicant or petitioner has received information prejudicial to his interest with the intention to check the repetition of the acts harmful or prejudicial to his interest, and not with the intention of causing injury to any particular person does not amount to `charge' within the meaning of the term used in the phraseology of Section 211 Indian Penal Code. The use of the expression `with intent to cause injury to any person' in the opening sentence of Section 211 Indian Penal Code makes it quite clear. If the accusation has not been made with that intention and with just or lawful ground no offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed. 8. In the case before me it is an accepted position that the petitioners and their company are the manufacturers of the drug, popularly known as ANACIN, and that the respondent is a seller of such a drug at two of his family businesses. On informations received by them the petitioners and their company could have reasons to believe that the goodwill of the drug was being invaded by some others by manufacturing a different drug under the same trade name. As a vigilant businessman of normal prudence the petitioners and/or their men could have invited the attention of the Drugs Authorities in Maharashtra to the harm caused or likely to be caused to them. As a vigilant businessman of normal prudence the petitioners and/or their men could have invited the attention of the Drugs Authorities in Maharashtra to the harm caused or likely to be caused to them. They had, therefore, just and lawful ground for requesting the authorities concerned to look into the matter and take appropriate steps to check the harm being caused to them by the violation of the provisions of the Act of 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. In making such an application to the authorities concerned the dominant intention of the petitioners and their company could be to protect their business interests from the repetition of the acts of invasion against their business from unknown manufacturers of the drug Anacin, rather than to cause the institution of criminal proceedings against the unauthorised manufacture of their product. This aspect of the present case is borne out from the obvious fact that the contents of the letter written by the petitioners and/or their men to the Drugs Authorities in Maharashtra or to some other authorities anywhere in India were neither reproduced in the complaint nor a copy of such a letter was placed on the record of the case. 9. A complaint should not ordinarily be dismissed in its inception at that very initial stage and a roving enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made therein is not contemplated at that stage. But at the same time it is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence that the contents of the complaint must disclose the commission of an offence. In the above factual matrix the complaint in the present case did not disclose the commission of an offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the order of taking cognizance of such an offence was inherently bad in law as it was not even prima facie shown that the petitioners had made any charge, what to speak of a false charge, against any particular person i.e. Respondent No. 2 with intent to cause injury to him. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 thus disclosed no commission of offence Under section 211 Indian Penal Code against him. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is dismissed. *******