M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , petitioners seekquashingofthefirno. 83/1996undersection506,ipcregisteredatthepolice Station Greater Kailash. ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the father of the petitioner No. 2 and both are residents of Calcutta (West Bengal ). On 26. 2. 1996, the impugned FIR was registered under Section 506, Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Greater Kailash on the basis of the following complaint made by respondent No. 2: "i am being constantly threatened at my office adress A-19, Pamposh Endave, New Delhi 48 for ransom of money. Lest I do not, I shall be kidnapped, the tentative dead line specified is 1. 3. 1996. The first time, they appeared was 9. 2. 1996. My Chowkidar Sh. Abdesh Dixit was able to handle them in a manner to send them away. The gentlemen concerned are Mr. Manoj Mohan Ghosh and his son Arindam Ghosh, r/o 90, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Calcutta. An information to the Calcutta Police Authorities will also be appreciated. The vehicle being used in Delhi for the process according to my Chowkidar is DBA 4801. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 held responsible posts in the Government of India. In 1994, he was introduced to the respondent No. 2 through one Mr. Abhijit Mukherjee. Some matrimonial disputes between the respondent No. 2 and his wife were pending in the Courts at Calcutta. Pursuant to the request made by the respondent No. 2 and his father, the petitioner No. 1 intervened in the matter and got the disputes settled between the respondent No. 2 and his wife. As per compromise, the respondent No. 2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. l,45,000. 00 to his wife. At request of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 paid the said sum to his wife. Despite an undertaking given by the respondent No. 2, he did not repay the said amount to the petitioner No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that with a view to avoiding repayment of the said amount, the respondent No. 2 lodged a false report against the petitioners. Despite an undertaking given by the respondent No. 2, he did not repay the said amount to the petitioner No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that with a view to avoiding repayment of the said amount, the respondent No. 2 lodged a false report against the petitioners. According to the learned Counsel, the allegations made in the impugned FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can overreach ajust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. ( 4 ) IT needs to be highlighted that the investigation of the case reveals that the petitioner No. 1 had helped the respondent No. 2 in the settlement of disputes between him and his wife and at the request of the No. 2, he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,45,000. 00 to the respondent No. 2 s wife through Banker s cheques. The Investigating Officer also opined that before the petitioner No. 1 could press for repayment of money, respondent No. 2 thought of this novel method to keep the petitioner No. I at bay by lodging the false report against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer has also filed the status report highlighting inherent improbabilities of the case. For example, the impugned FIR is conspicuous by the absence of the time of the alleged offence. However, the respondent No. 2 stated in his case diary statement that the time of the alleged offence was around sunset. On the contrary the investigation reveals that on 9. 2. 1996 the petitioner No. 1 had landed at Delhi Airport at 9. 20 p. m. Thus, the investigation of the case clearly supports the petitioners contention that allegation made in the impugned FIR are baseless and motivated. In Punjab National Bank v. Surender Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815 =i (1992) BC 579 (SC)=ii (1992) CCR 103 (SC) it was held that vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the case diary, I am of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 had abused the process of law by making a baseless and motivated complaint against the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned FIR is quashed. Petition allowed.