A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) NO body appears on behalf of the respondent-complainant even when the matter was called three times earlier. In these circumstances I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. On the complaint of respondent no. 3 FIR is registered against the petitioner under Sections 324/326,506 (II) IPC read with Section 3 (1) (ii), (x) and 3 (2) (vii) of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The gravamen of the charge of the complaint lodged by the complainant was that on termination of the services of the complainant who was working in the container Corporation of India, the complainant lodged a complaint with the labour Office (South) of Government of nct of Delhi. Notice was issued in the said complaint and when he sought to serve the notice to the petitioner who was working as group General Manager, HRD with the container Corporation of India, on 28. 8. 2001, after reading the notice and its contents the petitioner suddenly started abusing the complainant stating that: "saley tune mare ko notice karvwya hai who bhi merey nam se, Main tujhe dekh lunga, saley chamar, tu neech jati ka admi, mujhe notice karwata hai, Bhangi, saley tujhe to main apney office main sara kuda-karkat, latrine and gand uthwaunga, tu bhi yaad karega kis se pala pada hai". When the Complainant /applicant objected, please do not abuse me, since I belong to Scheduled Caste community and what ever you are saying is wrong then, Mr. M. L. Shanmukh stated that, "saley mujhe pata hai ki tu SC hai, tabhi to kah raha noun, tumhara to kam hi yahi karna hai or yahi kam turn se karwaunga" after stating those words he stand up and threatened the complainant/applicant by stating that "saley tujhe to main mar dunga" (I will kill you) and he opened his table drawer and picked out some sharp edge item like knife and moved towards the complainant/applicant. However, the complainant/applicant managed to save himself but during this the shirt of the complainant/applicant teared and the complainant/applicant also sustained injuries due to said assault on his neck. " ( 2 ) LEARNED Metropolitan Magistrate has passed summoning order dated 12. 5. 2004 and challenging the said summoning order present petition is filed seeking setting aside of the said order. " ( 2 ) LEARNED Metropolitan Magistrate has passed summoning order dated 12. 5. 2004 and challenging the said summoning order present petition is filed seeking setting aside of the said order. It may be noted at this stage that when the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of respondent no. 3, the police had investigated the matter and filed closure report. However, respondent no. 3 preferred Protest petition and taking cognizance thereof, impugned order dated 12. 5. 2004 is passed. It is stated in this petition that no such incident took place on 28. 8. 2001 and since the enquiry was in progress on the charge of misconduct after holding departmental enquiry, respondent no. 3 lodged false complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is evident that the allegations are false as would be clear from the fact that there is no procedure in the Labour Office to give notice to the complaint for service on the employer. This submission of learned counsel is well founded. When a complaint is filed by a workman in the Labour Office and any date is fixed before the Labour Office in the said complaint for conciliation proceeding or otherwise, normally procedure is to either send the notice to the employer by post or labour Inspector may serve the notice on the employer. Moreover, the employer in this case was Container Corporation of India and normally the notice goes in the name of employer i. e. Container Corporation of india in this case and, therefore, it would be highly improbable that notice would be served upon the petitioner who was working as Group General Manager (HRD) with container Corporation of India at that time personally by the complainant. The allegation of the respondent no. 3, therefore, to the effect that the petitioner abused him in the manner stated by him in his complaint and as recorded above when he had gone to him to serve copy of the notice issued by Labour Office (South), Government of nct of Delhi does not inspire confidence. ( 3 ) IN the closure report submitted by the police which is annexed with this petition, it is, inter alia observed as under: "during the course of investigation, the verification of the statement of shri Suresh Kumar Ranga was done. ( 3 ) IN the closure report submitted by the police which is annexed with this petition, it is, inter alia observed as under: "during the course of investigation, the verification of the statement of shri Suresh Kumar Ranga was done. The print out in respect of mobile phone No. 9810293457 which is owned by Shri Suresh Kumar Ranga and claimed to be used by him on the date of incident i. e. 28. 8. 2001 obtained from Airtel and was analysed. From the analysis of print out it transpired that on 28. 8. 2001, this mobile phone was used 9 times, 5 calls were received where 4 calls were made from this phone. From the Cell id analysis, it transpired that at 18:08:02 Hrs. Shri Suresh Kumar ranga, the man using this phone was in the Cell ID area of Motia Khan. At 19:11:42 the phone was used when he was in the Cell ID area of PTI building. The place of alleged incidence is situated in the Cell ID area of PTI Building. This shows that the claim made by Shri Suresh Kumar ranga and Shri Sanjeev Kumar that suresh Kumar Ranga was with Sanjeev kumar in the office of Container corporation of India at 2nd Floor, Le-Meridien comml. Tower, Raisina Road, new Delhi from 4. 30 PM onwards till the incident is not corroborated. Moreover, the claim of shri Suresh kumar Ranga that he was with Shri sanjeev Kumar has also not been corrobrated by any person present in the office of the Container Corporation of India Ltd. So it is concluded that physically as well as technically, that the claim of the complainant that Shri ranga was present with him at the time of alleged incident is not corroborated. " ( 4 ) IN State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 the Supreme Court discussed in detail the principles which shall govern the cases relating to quashing of the investigation and/or the FIR. ( 5 ) IN following categories of cases, the High court may in exercise of powers under art. 226 or under S. 482 of Cr. P. C. may interfere in proceedings relating. to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ( 5 ) IN following categories of cases, the High court may in exercise of powers under art. 226 or under S. 482 of Cr. P. C. may interfere in proceedings relating. to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 the 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 the code except under an order of magistrate within the purview of s. 155 (2) of the Code. 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. 4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no invesetigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under s. 155 (2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 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 and personal grudge. 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 and personal grudge. ( 6 ) THE Court also observed that where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. ( 7 ) I am of the opinion that the present case would clearly fall in category-5 inasmuch as the allegations are inherently improbable in view of the discussion made above and a prudent person cannot reach just conclusion as there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. There is a shade of category-7 also i. e. some personal grudge nurtured by the complainant as the petitioner had, in the capacity of Group general Manager initiated disciplinary proceedings against the complainant though this judgment is not rested on solely on this category. ( 8 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be that FIR No. 240/2002 under sections 324/326,506 (II) IPC read with section 3 (1) (ii), (x) and 3 (2) (vii) of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered with Police Station Parliament street, New Delhi as well as summoning order dated 12. 5. 2004 passed by learned mm is hereby quashed. ( 9 ) THIS petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.