KHAN ( 1 ) ALL the three petitions challenge FIR No. 408/97, magistrate s summoning order under Sections 452/506/323/34 ipc and pending criminal proceedings and being identical in fact and law are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners are housewives and so is the complainant (private respondent) Saroj Bahl living in Bijli apartment Flats at G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi. After having fallen out, they lodged rival complaints at P. S. Model Town leading to registration of two FIRs - FIR No. 408/97 against petitioners which is the subject matter of present petitions and FIR No. 409/97 against complainant s husband one Sudhir Bahl. Though second FIR is said to have died its own death, the first one is still surviving and raging and it is sought to be quashed along with consequential summoning order and pending criminal proceedings. Hence these petitions. ( 2 ) BOTH sides are projecting their own versions. Petitioners claim that they were the first to lodge the complaint against the misbehaviour and indecent conduct of complainant s husband Sudhir Bahl, son of a chartered accountant working with then IG, Police one Ramakrishnan at that time. This annoyed the couple leading to filing of retaliatory complaint by his wife Saroj Bahl on 30. 6. 1996 alleging that petitioner Kamini and 10 other ladies (petitioners herein) had trespassed into her. flat on 28. 6. 1996 when she was alone in the house, had beaten her with sandals and had pressed her throat to kill her. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, no action was taken by the police on this complaint and later FIR No. 408/97 was registered 11 months after the alleged occurrence on 23. 5. 1997. Investigation was first handed over to Narender Singh SI who could not procure any supporting evidence. It was later transferred to SI Ramesh Kumar who obtained statements of two witnesses - Maya Devi, claiming to be the maid servant of complainant and Smt. Inderjeet Sethi, said to be her neighbour under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on 14. 6. 1998 after about two years of alleged occurrence and police report was filed before MM on 5. 7. 1998 who took cognizance under Sections 452/506/323/34 IPC and passed the summoning order dated 15. 12. 1998. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS case is that complaint dated 30. 6. 1996, FIR dated 23. 5. P. C. on 14. 6. 1998 after about two years of alleged occurrence and police report was filed before MM on 5. 7. 1998 who took cognizance under Sections 452/506/323/34 IPC and passed the summoning order dated 15. 12. 1998. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS case is that complaint dated 30. 6. 1996, FIR dated 23. 5. 97 and supporting statements of two witnesses dated 14. 6. 1998 did not make out or constitute any offence against them and had emanated from complainant s personal grudge and ulterior motive and vengeance and malafides and that continuation of criminal proceedings against them would not serve the interest of justice and would result in abuse of process of court. It is accordingly prayed by them that FIR, the summoning order and pending criminal proceedings be quashed and disciplinary action taken against erring police officials (R2-3) and compensation be paid to them for subjecting them to malicious prosecution. ( 5 ) COMPLAINANT Saroj Bahl has a different story to tell. She complains that writ petitioner Kamini s husband one Hira Lal Asrani was proclaiming himself to be the president of resident s society and so was Kamini projecting herself as pradhani . both were dictating terms to residents of the apartments and indulging in illegal activities like hosting of late night parties, collecting monthly subscriptions and organising plantation of trees in front of their flat which was being opposed by her and her husband. She alleges that on 28. 6. 1996 when she was alone at her flat, Kamini along with 10 other ladies entered her flat and started abusing and beating her with sandals and tried to press her throat. Two days later, her husband was also beaten up and compelled to write some undertaking. She then filed a written complaint at P. S. Model Town on 30. 6. 1996 but no action was taken by the police. So much so that she had to approach DCP upon which FIR No. 408/97 was registered one year after the incident. She challenges the very maintainability of these petitions in the face of alternative remedy of revision available to petitioners against the summoning order and the opportunity of seeking discharge from the Magistrate in case no case was found to be made out against them under the alleged offences. She challenges the very maintainability of these petitions in the face of alternative remedy of revision available to petitioners against the summoning order and the opportunity of seeking discharge from the Magistrate in case no case was found to be made out against them under the alleged offences. She prays for dismissal of these petitions and wants the normal legal process to prevail and proceed. ( 6 ) LD. counsel for parties also made their submissions on expected lines. According to Mr. D. C. Mathur, senior advocate and Mr. Surender Miglani, representing petitioners, neither the complaint nor the supporting material collected at investigation constituted or made out the alleged offences against petitioners and the action against them emanated from complainant s malafides and personal grudge and vengeance and continuation of criminal proceedings against them would only subject them to unending court process without serving any ends of justice which would, in turn, result in the abuse of process of court. They highlighted various circumstances to show how police had dealt with the matter and dragged the feet in registering the FIR 11 months after the alleged incident and by obtaining statements of two witnesses, two years after it. It was also pointed out by them that none of the petitioners except Kamini was named in the FIR either by the complainant or the supporting witnesses and yet police had intriguingly brought on record some supplementary statement containing the names of other petitioners on 15. 7. 1998 and the Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences against them also in a routine manner and without application of mind. They sought support from several supreme Court judgments including A. K. Roy Vs. B. V. Mehta 1998 SCC (Crl) 269, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 , Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Special Judicial magistrate 1998 SCC (Crl) 1400 and H. Ranjan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar 2000 Crl. L. J. (3) 2983 to reiterate that this court enjoyed the power to quash the FIR, summoning order and the pending criminal proceedings where it felt satisfied that complaint together with other materials collected during investigation did not constitute the alleged offences and where the criminal proceeding was found to be surrounded or tainted by malafides, revenge or ulterior motive of vengeance or personal grudge and where it s continuation would not serve the ends of justice. ( 7 ) LD. ( 7 ) LD. COUNSEL for respondents Mr. S. C. Jain and ms. Mukta Gupta, on the other hand, justified the criminal prosecution against petitioners pointing out that petitioners had admitted their entry in complainant s flat in their complaint which prima facie made out an offence of trespass against them and which was good enough for taking cognizance by the Magistrate. They attributed the delay in presenting the police report to petitioners attempts to stall the investigation process at different stages. They also asserted that Magistrate s summoning order was not liable to be quashed in the face of availability of alternative remedy of revision to petitioners who could also seek a discharge from the Magistrate if it was so found that no cognizable offence was made out against them. They also REFERRED TO to various Supreme Court judgments including K. K. Mthew s case AIR 1992 SC 2206 and Bhajan lal s case which provides that this court could exercise the inherent writ power to quash a Magistrate s summoning order and the criminal proceedings only in the rarest of rate cases which was not the present case. ( 8 ) WHAT is the extent of inherent and writ power of this court in the circumstances and on what grounds it was exercisable and whether availability of an alternative remedy of revision operated as a bar in this regard is no more a res integra and is by and large settled by a series of Supreme Court judgments though to quote from those would be to repeat what had been stated very often. Suffice it to say that consensual view, barring minor diversions here and there dictated by the circumstances of a case gathered from the relevant judgments was that the High Court enjoyed the inherent and the writ power to quash a complaint/fir and even a summoning order and the on-going criminal proceedings where it felt satisfied that uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the supporting material gathered at investigation, even when taken on the face value, did not make out or constitute the alleged offences or that the action was attended by complainant s malafides, personal grudge or vengeance or was frivolous and vexatious, tentamounting to abuse of process of court or where its continuation would not serve the ends of justice. ( 9 ) IN Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. ( 9 ) IN Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao chandrojirao Angre and Ors (1988) 1 SCC 692 , the Apex Court went a step further in holding that the court process could not be allowed to be used for oblique purposes and that the court would be within its bounds to quash the proceedings where chances of seeking conviction appeared to it to be bleak. Though it administered a caution in State of Bihar vs. P. P. Sharma, IAS and Anr. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 requiring the High Court not to undertake the exercise of quashing the proceedings on its own, but all the same it approved the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court eventually crystalised the position in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 and prescribed illustrative guidelines laying down amongst other things as under:- " (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations 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 the accused. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge. " ( 10 ) HAVING done so, the court all the same cautioned against quashing of criminal proceedings and held that the power was to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. ( 11 ) IT later followed and reiterated this position in several successive judgments and in one of these i. e. Pepsi Foods Limited case held as under:- "no doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 462 of the Code or Article 227 of the constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complainant does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. Summoning of on accused in a Criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Summoning of on accused in a Criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses, to elicit answers, to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. " ( 12 ) IT is only lately that the Apex Court had narrowed down a little the scope and the limits within which the writ power could be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In M. N. Damani Vs. S. K. Sinha and Others JT 2001 (Supp-I) SC 375, it said that High Court could not 90 into whether there was a prospect of conviction in a criminal proceeding. Similarly, in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa 2002 AIR SCW 286, it observed that it was not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of a complainant in the light of probabilities nor determine whether a conviction would be sustainable. It also held that malafides of the complainant can t by itself form the basis for quashing the proceedings. ( 13 ) SO far so good. But even so, basic position enunciated by the Apex Court remains intact and unaltered. As a matter of fact, it required to be appreciated that exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High was not a matter of arithmetical proposition. No hard and fast rule or any cut and dry formula could be laid for exercise of such a power which indeed was exercisable on self-restraint. As a matter of fact, it required to be appreciated that exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High was not a matter of arithmetical proposition. No hard and fast rule or any cut and dry formula could be laid for exercise of such a power which indeed was exercisable on self-restraint. therefore, wherever the court felt satisfied and convinced that the uncontroverted allegations in a criminal proceeding even when taken on face value did not make out or constitute alleged offences and that it was surrounded, tainted or attended by elements of complainant s malafides, ulterior motive to wreck vengeance or oblique purpose to use the court process to settle the personal grudge and that its continuation would not serve the ends of justice or would result in the abuse of process of court being frivolous and vexatious, it would be within its competence to strike down the proceeding notwithstanding any technicalities of law and procedure involved. The court would not, however, examine the genuineness, correctness or reliability of the allegations made in the complaint, nor hold any pre-trial in the light of probabilities of the case. ( 14 ) IT would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be cases whe where several factors would exist warranting quashing of proceedings and there could be cases where the allegations in the complaint may prima facie constitute an alleged offence, yet the continuation of proceedings may be found to be vexatious, useless, serving no purpose or serving an oblique purpose and defeating the ends of justice. In such cases, the court would again be within its rights and boundaries to strike at the proceedings to serve the cause of justice and while doing so, it would not be transgressing the frontiers of "rarest of rare" case category. It all depends on how the court percieves the contours of the proceedings which can t be reduced to a straight jacket formula. ( 15 ) TESTED on these parameters, it remained to be seen whether the petitioners case would fit the bill and warrant quashing of criminal proceedings against them. For this, it becomes necessary to extract the complaint, the statement of two witnesses and Magistrate s summoning order which are extracted herein for facility sake:- complaint "the Station House Officer model Town Police Station delhi-9. For this, it becomes necessary to extract the complaint, the statement of two witnesses and Magistrate s summoning order which are extracted herein for facility sake:- complaint "the Station House Officer model Town Police Station delhi-9. Sir, i am a resident of Flat No. 7 and 8 Ground Floor, B block, Bijli Apartment, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi. There is one Mrs. Kamini 2nd wife of Sh. Hira Lal asrani who is living in Flat No. 8-28, above the flat of the applicant. On 28th June, 96, in the afternoon she trespassed into my flat forcibly with about 10 other ladies resident of other flats. 1 was alone in the house. They started abusing and beating me. Mrs. Kamini is a special police officer, press photographer and reporter s as per her name plate. She lead of all the ladies. She beat me with her sandles and pressed my throat to kill me. She is continuing to threaten to Kill me. Her husband Shri Hira Lal Asrami is at present president of the voluntary society of resident. She claims herself to be president of the society and a police officer. Please save me from her and her associated ladies and gents who are also threatening to kill even my husband. She has complained against my husband on the basis of hearsay. My husband Sudhir Kumar was not at home when they trespassed into my house and attacked me. The name of other ladies accompanying in the trespass and attach may be checked from her. One elderly lady from the other flat above my flat on hearing the commotion came rushing and saved me from their clutches. Kindly save my and my husband life from them and oblige. Yours faithfully. (SAROJ BAHL W/o SH. Sudhir bahl) Flat No. 7 and 8 dated - 30. 6. 96. B Block, Bijli Apartment (J. T. Karnal Road delhi-33. STATEMENT OF SMT. MAYA DEVI "statement, u/s 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of Smt. Maya w/o Ishwar Singh r/o B/38, bijli Apartments, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi. Stated that I am residing in the above address and I am house wife and I am working as a maid servant. On 28. 6. 96, I was present in the house of my landlady Smt. Saroj Bahl who was also present in the house. Stated that I am residing in the above address and I am house wife and I am working as a maid servant. On 28. 6. 96, I was present in the house of my landlady Smt. Saroj Bahl who was also present in the house. I know Smt. Kamini from before and she alongwith some ladies came to the house and started assaulting my landlady Saroj Bahl and on hearing the noise our Mrs. Manjit Sethi also came under and with her help I and Mrs. Sethi rescued Saroj Bahl. I do not know other women except Mrs. Kamini. Legal action be taken against her. Statement heard and found correct. Sd/- s. J. PS Model Town dt. 14. 6. 98"statement OF SMT. INDERJEET SETHI "statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of Smt. Inderjeet Sethi, r/o B/33 and 34, bijli Apartments, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi. Stated that I am residing in the above address and am a house wife. On 28. 6. 96, I was present at my house and on hearing the noise from the house of smt. Saroj Bahl who is residing in my neighbour, I reached there and saw that smt. Kamini, who is residing at B-28 to whom I know earlier, was accompanied with some ladies and was abusing Smt. Bahl and was beating Smt. Saroj Bahl with chappals to whom i and the maid servant of Smt. Saroj Bahl rescued. I do not know the other ladies accompanying Mrs. Kamini. Legal action be taken against her. Statement heard and found correct. Sd/- ps Model Town dt. 14. 6. 98"magistrate s SUMMONING ORDER "fir No. 408/97 15. 12. 98 fresh challan filed by I. O. S. I. Sanjiv Kumar and Shri Ashok Kumar. Ld. APP for State. Be checked and registered. Sd/- m. M. Delhi (no date) present as above. Heard. Perused. Being satisfied cognizance of the case against the accused for offence u/s 452/506/323/34 IPC taken, issue dasti B/w in the sum of Rs. 5000. 00 against, each of the accused for 24. 2. 1999. Sd/- m. M. Delhi. 15. 12. 98" ( 16 ) A perusal of the complaint and supporting two statements would show that neither the complaint nor the statements name any of the petitioners except Kamini nor allege any offence against them. 5000. 00 against, each of the accused for 24. 2. 1999. Sd/- m. M. Delhi. 15. 12. 98" ( 16 ) A perusal of the complaint and supporting two statements would show that neither the complaint nor the statements name any of the petitioners except Kamini nor allege any offence against them. It is surprising that their names should have been allowed to be brought on investigation record through some supplementary statement after two years and that the Magistrate should have taken cognizance of offences against them mechanically and in a routine manner. The case of these petitioners, therefore, falls in the first category where no cognizable offence is made out or constituted against them even on the face of uncontroverted allegations in the complaint and the supporting material gathered at investigation. Therefore, there could be no hitch in quashing the Magistrate s summoning order and the on-going criminal proceedings against them. ( 17 ) THEIR writ petitions Crl. W. 130/99 and Crl. W. 152/99 are accordingly allowed and the impugned Magistrate s summoning order and pending criminal procedings against them quashed. ( 18 ) WRIT petitioner Kamini s case, however, does not fall in this category. It would, therefore, have to be seen whether FIR, summoning order and criminal proceedings in her case could be quashed otherwise. This necessitates an overall look at the circumstances of the case against her and brings us to the terms of the complaint and attendant surrounding circumstances. It is a common ground that Kamini s husband was claiming to be the President of residents welfare society who according to complainant was indulging in some illegal activities including organising of plantation of trees in front of complainant s flat. The complainant also admits in her complaint that Kamini had also filed a complaint against her husband on the basis of hear-say. She further alleges that she was alone in her house when Kamini and 10 other ladies entered and started abusing her and beating her with chappals and tried to press her throat. Given regard to terms of complainant s complaint, it appears curious that police had not recorded any evidence in the matter for two years after the alleged occurrence till one Maya Devi claiming to be the maid servant of the complainant and Mrs. Inderjit Sethi, a neighbour surfaced to record their supporting statements. Given regard to terms of complainant s complaint, it appears curious that police had not recorded any evidence in the matter for two years after the alleged occurrence till one Maya Devi claiming to be the maid servant of the complainant and Mrs. Inderjit Sethi, a neighbour surfaced to record their supporting statements. Even these two witnesses could not name the other 10 ladies (writ petitioners) who allegedly accomplanied Kamini. It is also surprising that the investigating agency had not subjected the complainant to any medical examination who had complained of beating by chappals and her throat being pressed to kill her. The police had also taken a few more months to present the report leading to the passing of the summoning order by the Magidtrate overlooking the sequence of events and the back-drop of the case and without caring to ascertain and find out whether the allegations made in the complaint and the available supporting evidence was good enough to bring the charge home to the accused. ( 19 ) ALL this leaves no scope for doubt that criminal proceedings against Kamini were also attended by complainant s revenge, her oblique purpose to use court process and to settle scores with the accused and were borne of an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and personal grudge. This is not to suggest that complainant s malafides constituted the sole basis for this conclusion or that it amounted to or determination of reliability or correctness of the allegations or prejudging the probabilities involved but to underscore an inevitable inferences that were liable to be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case attracting the court s writ power to set at naught the criminal proceedings which it felt would not serve the ends of justice. ( 20 ) REGARD being had to Kamini s counter complaint having ended and the housewives inhibiting the Bijli apartments including Kamini and complainant. Saroj Bahl having spend as good as four years in this long drawn process and the Magistrates summoning order having been passed in a routine manner, there is no escape from conclusion that continuation of criminal proceedings against Kamini also would be vaxatious and would serve no purpose, least of all any ends of justice. ( 21 ) KAMINI s writ petition (Crl. ( 21 ) KAMINI s writ petition (Crl. W. 151/99) is also consequently allowed and FIR No. 408/97 and the summoning along with pending proceedings quashed against her.