JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral):- This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the quashing of the complaint Annexure P-1 under Section 307/34 IPC and consequent summoning order Annexure P-2 dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners aunt was allegedly murdered by the brother of the complainant Darshan Singh. He along with others was convicted and imprisoned for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is alleged that on one of the occasions when Darshan Singh was on parole, an incident took place which led to the lodging of the FIR by him against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners used firearms and injured him on 28.9.2002. FIR No.432 of 2002 under the provisions of Sections 307/34 IPC was registered. The matter was initially got investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and vide report dated 6.1.2004, he recommended the preparation of challan submission to the Court. It is pertinent to state here that the investigation by the DSP was conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in Crl.Misc.No.11778-M of 2003. 3. Strangely, another investigation was got done by the Inspector, CID, Crime Branch, Panchkula, who was purportedly acting on the orders of the Superintendent of Police and vide report dated 12.2.2004 the complaint of Darshan Singh was found to be false and a cancellation report was recommended with a further directive that proceedings under Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be initiated against said Darshan Singh. During the interregnum when these investigations were being done by the police, Jaswinder Singh complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal which is Annexure P-1 on the record. After the preliminary evidence was adduced before the court petitioners were summoned to stand trial for the offences under Section 307/34 IPC. The aforesaid complaint and the consequent process has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition to say that a false case has been foisted upon the petitioners and that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law. The aforesaid contention has been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents to say that at this stage the proceedings ought not to be quashed because prima facie the commission of a serious offence has been disclosed in the complaint. The aforesaid contention has been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents to say that at this stage the proceedings ought not to be quashed because prima facie the commission of a serious offence has been disclosed in the complaint. That apart, an officer of the rank of DSP has inquired into the matter establishing the commission of the offence by the petitioners. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint and the summoning order are not absolute. This Court cannot go into the truthfulness of the allegations. If a complaint prima facie discloses the commission of offence, then interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others AIR 1976 SC 1947 has observed as under: “At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or de-merits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one.” X x x x “It is true that incoming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations but there appears to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under Section 202 which culminates into an order under Section 204. Thus in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside: (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and. (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” In State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa and another AIR 2002 SC 671 it has been observed as follows:­ “………..the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the 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 highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the 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 the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage………..It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the 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 the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquitted. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complaint that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” 5.The complaint can be quashed only if it is established that it is an abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice pursuant to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reverting back to the facts of the case; the complaint and the consequent summoning order became necessary and justifiable in view of the two conflicting investigation reports by the agencies of the State. In the backdrop of these circumstances, the complaint and the summoning order can hardly be termed as an abuse of the process of law. For the reasons stated above, there is no ground to interfere. Dismissed. ---------------------