ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against them in respect of Crime No. 462/2008, registered by Police Station, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal under Sections 387, 507, 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against them and three other accused persons. In respect of above charge sheet, (State of M.P. v. Pradeep Shrivas. R.T. No. 5817/2009) is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that complainant Rajendra Agal, a Journalist by profession, who had published an article in his fortnightly magazine `Aks' and had made number of complaints against the Petitioners to Lokayukta and other high Officers, lodged a report with the police that on 7th August, 2008, some unknown person purporting himself to be Vikram Singh made a telephone call to him saying that since he had highlighted the scam of Rs. 15 crore, those persons had given him contract to eliminate him. But, since he knew that he was very good man and belonged to a very good family, he did not want to kill him, however he was bound to do it, because he had received 5 lakhs from that person. He wanted to meet the complainant and suggested him that he should take precaution. He further suggested that if he met and talked him, he will solve his problem and instead eliminate the person, who gave contract for his killing. It is said that complainant recorded the said conversation and at that time switched on the speaker of phone whereby other persons namely Mohar Singh, Brijesh Sahu, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma & Constable Laxman Yadav, P.S.O. could also hear the same. According to complainant, it was a real threat because he had published big scams in which Petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, the then Director of Health and Family Welfare and Ashok Nanda, a close friend of Yogiraj Sharma were involved. According to him, he suspected the hands of these persons behind this deal. 3. Receiving this information police registered the First Information Report as Crime No. 462/2008. During investigation statements of complainant Rajendra Agal, Mohar Singh, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma and Constable Laxman Yadav, who was appointed complainant's Personal Security Officer were recorded. According to him, he suspected the hands of these persons behind this deal. 3. Receiving this information police registered the First Information Report as Crime No. 462/2008. During investigation statements of complainant Rajendra Agal, Mohar Singh, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma and Constable Laxman Yadav, who was appointed complainant's Personal Security Officer were recorded. Script of the tape recorded conversation was seized by the police. Statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the script repeated the same narration which was mentioned in the written report submitted by the complainant and in the F.I.R. recorded by the police. Call details of Mobile No. 9009119303 from which call was made were obtained from the concerned Company and was found that the said mobile stood in the name of accused Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh was arrested and the said mobile was recovered from him. Record of Aman Palace Hotel, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal was seized which disclosed that Mohar Singh had stayed in the hotel from 24.7.2008 to 2.8.2008. Accused Pradeep Shrivas was also arrested and from his possession a country made 315 bore Katta and two cartridges were seized. In a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded on an information by Pradeep Shrivas, it was disclosed by him that accused Veerkant Nigam had offered him Rs. 5 lakhs for killing complainant Rajendra Agal and Veerkant Nigam had obtained Rs. 2 lakhs from Petitioner Ashok Nanda (Contractor) and had given Rs. 40,000/-to him. Since he could not commit murder of Rajendra Agal, Veerkant Nigam demanded his money back, therefore, he gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-to him from his account. He also disclosed that the mobile with which he talked to Rajendra Agal was with Mohar Singh. Another memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by accused Veerkant Nigam in which it was disclosed that contractor Ashok Nanda had given a contract of Rs. 5 lakhs for eliminating the complainant. He had received Rs. 2 lakhs and out of that he paid Rs. 40,000/-to Pradeep Shrivas, but since he could not kill the complainant, he demanded his money back and Pradeep Shirvas gave him a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-. The said cheque was seized from the possession of accused Veerkant Nigam. 4. Police also seized a report lodged by complainant on 22.8.2007 against Petitioner Dr. 40,000/-to Pradeep Shrivas, but since he could not kill the complainant, he demanded his money back and Pradeep Shirvas gave him a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-. The said cheque was seized from the possession of accused Veerkant Nigam. 4. Police also seized a report lodged by complainant on 22.8.2007 against Petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma accusing him that on that day in the premises of J.P. Hospital he abused and intimidated him, however, no offence was registered on the said report. Copies of number of complaints made by complainant to Lokayukta against Dr. Sharma disclosing his corrupt practices were also seized. All these documents were filed with the charge sheet. 5. In addition to above evidence, police also recorded statements of Udaybhan Singh and Radheshyam Agrawal, who disclosed that two boys were inquiring whereabouts of complainant. 6. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no legal evidence against the Petitioners. At the most, the complaints made by Rajendra Agal to Lokayukta and the article published by him against the Petitioners could indicate a motive on the part of Petitioners, but merely motive could not be a sufficient ground for their prosecution. In the conversation between said Vikram Singh and the complainant there was nothing to indicate that Petitioners were involved in the case. The involvement of the Petitioners was indicated by prosecution only on the basis of confessional statements of accused Pradeep Shrivas and Veerkant Nigam, but that cannot form part of the legal and admissible evidence in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Recovery of Katta from Pradeep Shrivas and a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-from Veerkant Nigam which was issued by Pradeep did not make out any evidence against the Petitioners. He submitted that since there was absolutely no iota of evidence against the Petitioners, criminal proceeding and the charge sheet filed against them being abuse of the process of the Court deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh- 1994 Supp (2) SCC 707 and State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh- 1994 Supp (2) SCC 707 and State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah and Ors. 2005 (3) SCC 169 . 7. Per contra, Shri J.K. Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the State and Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, submitted that the involvement of the Petitioners was clear from the information furnished by accused Pradeep Shrivas and Veerkant Nigam in memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that the evidence of strong motive on the part of Petitioners furnished enough material against them for filing the charge sheet. At the stage of taking cognizance or even framing the charge, the evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be appreciated, therefore, this petition filed by the Petitioners deserved to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.- AIR 2005 SC 716 . 8. We have heard the learned Counsel of the parties at length, and have perused the material and evidence filed with the charge sheet. 9. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court in great detail considered the scope of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding relying on the earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab - AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), it was held : 9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the 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 not legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. 10. 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 Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry where the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta 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. 11. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it 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 this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows : 102. (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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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 investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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. 10. From the above proposition, it is apparent that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide, but it requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution particularly where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy and the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. 11. In the case in hand, the investigation of the case has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution particularly where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy and the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. 11. In the case in hand, the investigation of the case has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court. In the light of above enunciation of law, when the factual or legal aspects of the case are examined it is evident that Petitioners could have a motive against complainant because he had published article in his magazine highlighting the corruption done by Petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, but motive by itself does not furnish sufficient material to constitute a prima facie case for prosecution. In the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that "mere suspicion of motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing the charges in the absence of any material, prima facie showing that the particular motive has passed into action and that the accused is connected with that action in question." Similarly State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah (supra), it was held that "motive by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused." Thus, it is apparent that merely on the suspicion of motive, Petitioners cannot be prosecuted. 12. As far as the evidence of memoranda given by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is concerned, their confessional statements to police cannot be accepted as legal evidence against Petitioners in the absence of any other incriminating piece of evidence. Except the above circumstances, absolutely no other evidence has been collected and produced by the prosecution prima facie to indicate that Petitioners hatched conspiracy with other accused persons to commit murder of complainant Rajendra Agal. 13. The facts of the case of Jayendra Saraswathi (supra) are altogether different. In that case there was the evidence of confession of co-accused disclosing the conspiracy between them. The said confession was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in the present case the confessional statement is said to have been made to police which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 14. Apparently, the case of Petitioners is such which is covered by the illustrative Category No. 3 as indicated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). 14. Apparently, the case of Petitioners is such which is covered by the illustrative Category No. 3 as indicated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It has been held by the Apex Court repeatedly that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. Since without embarking upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not and whether the accusation would or would not end in conviction, prima facie it appears that there is absolutely no legal evidence against the Petitioners and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners would be the abuse of process of Court, this petition deserves to be allowed and the above prosecution as well as the charge sheet filed against the Petitioners deserve to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Charge sheet as far as it relates to Petitioners in R.T. No. 5187 of 2009 pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal and the criminal proceeding against them arising out of the Crime No. 462/2008 of police M.P. Nagar, Bhopal are quashed. It is however made clear that nothing contained in this order shall affect the case of prosecution against other accused persons.