Judgment :- Arijit Pasayat, C.J. This application has been taken up by Division Bench along with WA 2313 of 1999 arising out of OP 23138 of 1999, as mention was made about an interim order passed in this case staying further proceedings of trial of the casein the event of charge sheet being filed. Prayer in the Original Petition as well as the Writ Appeal has nexus with such order of stay. In this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short'Code'), prayer has been made to quash entire proceedings initiated on the basis of First Information Report (in short 'FIR') lodged on 27.3.1997 (FIR No. 44/97, Kannur District Vigilance and Anti-corruption bureau). 2. According to petitioner, he has been a victim of harassment while acting as a Village Assistant. He had got into bad books of some influential but evil designed persons. He had entered into service under the benefit of dying in harness scheme, as his father had died on 2.6.1992 as PWD NMR. When he joined service on 28.11.1996, a violent agitation was going on in connection with encroachments over excess land. Strike was going on with the active support of Leftist parties within territorial jurisdiction of Padiyoor Village office. Encroachment agitation was in respect of 'Padiyoor Gopi Kumar Estate' which was taken over by State Government treating it to be excess land. Leftist party workers and supporters encroached into this land and erected tents. Orders of Government were to be effect that no encroachment should be allowed and trespassers should be evicted. By the time petitioner joined service, revenue authorities were evicting trespassers with the help of police. Petitioner who had just entered into service was also deputed on his very first day to said estate for evicting encroachers and to demolish temporary sheds and tents erected by encroachers. This continued for about one month and during said process, there were instances of direct confrontation between petitioner and other officers on the one side, and encroachers on the other. Encroachers threatened petitioner and other officers with dire consequences for removing temporary sheds and tents erected by them. Since he was carrying on official duty, he did his best to comply with directions given by his superiors. As he was not complying with the unreasonable and illegal request of encroachers, he was targeted. Encroachers threatened petitioner and other officers with dire consequences for removing temporary sheds and tents erected by them. Since he was carrying on official duty, he did his best to comply with directions given by his superiors. As he was not complying with the unreasonable and illegal request of encroachers, he was targeted. All these incidents are known to the Village Officer, his immediate superior and other officials who had participated in the aforesaid demolition work. On one occasion, four of the agitators directly came to him and threatened with dire consequences. Agitation continued till the end of December 1996 and it was stopped when Left parties came to power. In October 1997, another attempt of encroachment was reported and petitioner found that very same encroachers were cutting and removing bushes and branches of trees. Six full lorry loads of bushes and branches so illegally out and removed were confiscated. Matter was reported to Tahsildar, Thaliparambu for taking action under Kerala Land Conservancy Act. In the meanwhile, one of the brothers of petitioner, who is employed in National Security Guard (NSG) in Haryana sent a car to petitioner at Chuliyad. In the car, four colleagues of his brother, who belong to North India, also travelled. As there was no cartable way to petitioner's house. Car was parked in the night by the side of main road. A complaint was filed before Irikkur Police Station by same group of people nursing grudge alleging that smugglers are visiting house of petitioner and that smuggled goods were kept in the said car. On getting information, police came to his house for raid, but they could not get anything illegal. However, said incident injured petitioner's reputation as he was humiliated in front of his brother's colleagues. Same miscreants damaged the car by stoning, tyres were deflated, car sterio was stolen causing loss of more than Rs. 13.000/-. Petitioner's brother filed a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police, Irikkur Police Station. Police investigated matter and a crime was registered as Crime 44/97. After registering above crime, there was an attempt from the side of agitators for a compromise of above case. But it did not work out. From 1.12.1997 onwards petitioner was in-charge of the Village Officer, Padiyoor Village. New Village Officer took charge on 6.12.1997, went on leave and rejoined on 15.12.1997. After registering above crime, there was an attempt from the side of agitators for a compromise of above case. But it did not work out. From 1.12.1997 onwards petitioner was in-charge of the Village Officer, Padiyoor Village. New Village Officer took charge on 6.12.1997, went on leave and rejoined on 15.12.1997. On 11.12.1997, one Balussery Manoharan came to the office and submitted an application in his mother's name for issuance of a possession certificate. After submitting application, he went out of office quickly. On 15.12.1997, he came and since on that day petitioner was not in-charge of Village Officer, he directed him to go to the Village Officer. He came back from Village Officer's room and stood very close to petitioner's chair. Thereafter, he went out and at that time two persons came in and one introduced himself as Dy. S.P. Kannur Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau and asked whether petitioner had taken money from Manoharan. Petitioner answered that he did not. On inspection, Dy. S.P. found a hundred-rupee note in his drawer. Said currency was made subject to Phenothylene test. Officer asked petitioner as to how said currency came to his possession to which petitioner replied that he did not know. Petitioner was put to Phenothylene test and there was no colour change of the fingers. According to petitioner, the whole situation was manipulated by said Manoharan with active connivance of agitators to malign him. He was arrested on 15.12.1997, and released on bail on next day. Immediately after incident, Village Officer reported the matter to Tahsildar. On 11.2.1998 petitioner was transferred to Pattanoor Village from where he was suspended on 7.4.1998 by order dated 3.4.1998. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that factual position as highlighted above would clearly go to show that action taken against petitioner was malafide and to wreck vengeance. It is submitted that continuance of proceedings would adversely affect petitioner and should be quashed by exercise of power under S.482 of Code. 3. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, submitted that investigation is in progress and a bare reading of FIR and statements already recorded would clearly establish commission of offence, and it is not a fit case for exercise of S.482 of Code. 4. 3. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, submitted that investigation is in progress and a bare reading of FIR and statements already recorded would clearly establish commission of offence, and it is not a fit case for exercise of S.482 of Code. 4. S.482 of Code is statutory recognition of age-old and well-established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex-debito justitine to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of process of Court. The authority of Court exists for the advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority, so as to prevent justice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. The rule of inherent power has its source in a Latin Maxim "Suando lex aliquid conced it, concedere videtur in sine quo res ipso facto non petest", which means that "when the 1 aw gives anything to any one, it gives also all these things without which the thing itself could not exist". What are ends of justice? To the particular result in any particular case.justiceis indifferent. It is justice by ascertainment of truth as to the facts on a balance of plus and minus factors. 5. It is submitted that direction can be given for concurrent running of the sentence by exercise of power under S.482 of Code, and by the same analogy, direction can be given under S.482 for set-off of period suffered in custody in one case against sentence imposed in another. Without entering into controversial arena about jurisdiction to exercise power under S.482, it can be looked at from another angle. Even while exercising discretion conferred under S.427 the same has to be exercised on judicial principles. If a situation arises for invoking inherent power under S.482, Court has to see whether circumstances and the object for which inherent power is to be exercised are in existence and can be achieved. It has to be equally established that inherent power is to be exercised to do right and not to do wrong under it. It can be exercised sparingly only when the Court feels furtherance of ends of justice requires it, and not as a matter of routine. In a case of hardened criminals, and habitual offenders, benefit was refused by this Court. It can be exercised sparingly only when the Court feels furtherance of ends of justice requires it, and not as a matter of routine. In a case of hardened criminals, and habitual offenders, benefit was refused by this Court. It was observed that ends of justice requires that sentence should be run consecutively. (See: Sukumaran Nair v. State of Kerala 1988 (2) KLT1018). S.427 of Code directs that one sentence takes effect after the other. The sentencing Court has discretion to direct concurrency. The investiture of such discretion carries with it inbuilt requirement to exercise it on sound principles and not in a routine manner. Unprincipled exercise or unregulated benevolence of such discretion may ultimately go against statutory intents. 6. In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), the Supreme Court summarised some categories of cases where interest power can and should be exercised to quash proceedings: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against institution or continuance, e.g., want of sanction. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under S.482 of Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not, that is the function of trial judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression of needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, let it would be an instrument in the hands of private complaint as unleash vendatta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under S.482 of Code and the categories of cases where High Court may exercise its power under S.482 of Code relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lai and others (AIR 1992 SC 504). A note of caution was, however, added that power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by apex Court are as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the compliant, 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 accused, (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview, of S.155(2) of Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegation made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against 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 without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of Code or concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in Code or concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of Code or concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in Code or concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The powers possessed by High Court under S.482 of Code are very wide and the very plenitude of power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the higher court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence has not been collected and produced before Court and issues involved whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing proceedings at any stage (See: Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Choudhury, etc., - AIR 1993 SC 392). Every High Court, as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State, has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing ends of justice. But being an extraordinary power, it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a Subordinate Court of its powers. (See: Dr. Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar - AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for High Court to analyse case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that complaint cannot be proceeded with. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings is called for only in a case where the complain does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegation! set out in complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been take by Magistrate, it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent power under S.482 of Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction o acquittal. Complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that complaint is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event, there would be no justification for interference by High Court. (See: Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others -AIR 1990 SC 494). 7. As has been observed by apex Court in State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma ((1996) 7 SCC 705), FIR is only an initiation to move machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising power and deciding whether investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by Court and at that stage it is not possible for Court to take stock of materials or weigh them one way or other. Similar view was again expressed in Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada ((1997) 2 SCC 397), State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999 (1) KLT 747 - SC) and R.D. Bajaj & Anr v. K. Pal Singh Gill & Ann UT 1995 (7) SC 299). 8. Judged in the touchstone of principles laid down above, case at hand does not appear to be one where at the threshold of proceedings, exercise of power under S.482 of Code is called for. It is the case of petitioner that investigation is already over and final report has been submitted. Stage of cognizance and framing of charge are stages where the matter can be considered by the appropriate Court. Present application is not entertained. Criminal M.C. is dismissed.