Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the opposite party complainant 2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 27.9.1993 in Complaint Case no. 251 of 1993 under sections 323, 354, 352, 385 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the complainant opposite party no.2 filed a petition of complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, on 7.9.1993 stating therein, inter-alia, that on 4.9.1993 at about 10.00 A.M while the complainant was talking with his parents the petitioners came to his house from Bombay and no sooner the petitioner came to his house accused no.3, who happended to be his brother-in-law, demanded the box of his sister, Smt. Pushpa Sharma, on which the complainant told them that his wife has already taken away all her belongings including all her ornaments and the key of the box has also been taken away by her. This caused hot exchange of words and the accused persons got infuriated and they started abusing him with filthy language and the accused persons took out pistol from their waist and pointed at him and accused no.1 slapped him on his face. In the meantime, one Sushil Kumar Joshi, who happend to be in his house, tried to intervene and the mohalla people collected over there and the accused persons thereafter went away from his house. 4. On the basis of the complaint petition the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and made over the case under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, for enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, accordingly, has held enquiry and on the basis of the statement of the complaint and his witnesses on solemn affirmation issued processes against the petitioners for offence under sections 323, 354, 385 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Magistrate, accordingly, has held enquiry and on the basis of the statement of the complaint and his witnesses on solemn affirmation issued processes against the petitioners for offence under sections 323, 354, 385 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the complaint case as a first information report was already lodged against the complainant and his family members by petitioner no.1 on 13.8.1993 stating therein that his daughter, Pushpa Sharma, who was married with the complainant, was used to be tortured by the complainant and her inlaws and upon the first information report Khajekalan P.S. Case no. 96 of 1993 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and the complainant was taken into custody and, ultimately, he was granted bail by the court concerned on 3.9.1993. Learned counsel further submitted that as a sequel to the first information report lodged against the complainant the present complaint has been filed stating therein that just next day of his release the petitioners came to his house from Bombay and committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the present prosecution launched against the petitioners, therefore, must be held to be vexatious one as it has been instituted just to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that it was not probable for the petitioners to come from Bombay to Patna collectively for commission of this offence and at the face of the complaint petition the story set forth by the complainant appears to be highly exaggerated and concocted one. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on the contrary, submitted that sufficient facts have been disclosed in the complaint petition making out an offence against the petitioners and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the order impugned merely on the question of facts. 7. I have perused the complaint petition, the first information report lodged against the complainant, as contained in Annexure-2, and also the impugned order. From Annexure-2 the first information report lodged against the complainant and his family members it appears that the petitioner no.1 having come to know from his daughter, Pushpa Devi, that she was being tortured by her husband and the in-laws, lodged the first information report, as contained in Annexure-2. From Annexure-2 the first information report lodged against the complainant and his family members it appears that the petitioner no.1 having come to know from his daughter, Pushpa Devi, that she was being tortured by her husband and the in-laws, lodged the first information report, as contained in Annexure-2. From the materials on record it also appears from Annexure-1 that the question of torture of Pushpa Devi was taken up by a Social Organisation at Bombay and the matter was reported to the then Police Commissioner, Bombay, for immediate rescue of Pushpa Devi from the clutches of her husband and in-iaws at Patna; The step taken up by the Social Organisation at Bombay appears to be earlier to the first information report lodged by petitioner no.1 against the complainant. 8. The fact that the complainant was taken into custody pursuant to the first information report lodged by petitioner no.1 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was released from custody on 3.9.1993. 9. From the complaint petition it appears that at the time of occurrence one Sushil Kumar Joshi was in the house of the complainant and he had witnessed the entire occurrence and this fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the complaint petition that Sushil Kumar Joshi had intervened in the matter and he was already there in the house of the complainant from before but the complainant has withheld this witness and has examined three other witnesses in support of his case in course of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the order impugned it is manifest that Ramesh Kumar Khare, Satya Narain Agarwal and Radhe Shyam Sharma were examined on solemn affirmation as witnesses in course of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the complainant has withheld Sushil Kumar Joshi, who had witnessed the entire occurrence. 10. It is apparent from the materials on record that no sooner the complainant was released from custody the accused persons came there from Bombay to Patna City on the next day and committed the alleged offence. Besides this it appears to me that Sushil Kumar Joshi, who has been mentioned in the complaint as a person who had seen the occurrence and had intervened, was withheld by the complainant and he was not examined as complainants witness. Besides this it appears to me that Sushil Kumar Joshi, who has been mentioned in the complaint as a person who had seen the occurrence and had intervened, was withheld by the complainant and he was not examined as complainants witness. In my opinion Sushil Kumar Joshi was the most important witness to say as to whether the occurrence had taken place or not. Withholding the witness by the complainant makes the, case doubtful. No doubt, there are sufficient facts disclosed in the complaint petition disclosing the offence against the petitioners but the court, in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to see as to whether the allegations made in the complaint petition are probable or inherently improbable. The power conferred upon the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide and judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In my opinion, the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case into consideration before issuing process. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supreme Court (1) S.C.C. 335) it was held that where the allegations made in the first information report 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 the court shall not be powerless to exercise its inherent power. In the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha (A.I.R 1992 S.C. 1815) the Apex Court has observed that judicious process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. 11. In view of the discussions aforesaid and in view of the legal proposition, as noticed above, in my opinion even though the complaint petition discloses an offence the complaint petition must he held to be vexatious one and the same was filed just to harass and humiliate the petitioners. 12. 11. In view of the discussions aforesaid and in view of the legal proposition, as noticed above, in my opinion even though the complaint petition discloses an offence the complaint petition must he held to be vexatious one and the same was filed just to harass and humiliate the petitioners. 12. In the result, therefore, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners including the order taking cognizance.