JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2. 2. This is an application seeking quashing of order dated 12.2.2002 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 342, 323, 384, 504 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act in Complaint Case No. 2045(C) of 2001, which was transferred to the Court of Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna for further needful. 3. The relevant facts of the case is that Indian Oil Corporation invited application from eligible person for franchisees. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 applied for the same besides one Bimal Kumar Jain, however said Bimal Kumar Jain was at the top of the list of persons recommended by Dealer Selection Board i.e. DSB and complainant was just behind him. 4. Findings some irregularities/ illegalities apparently committed, opposite party no. 2 filed Title Suit No. 106 of 2001 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patna for a declaration regarding his claim and alleged illegal denial by the authorities concerned. He further sought order of ad interim injunction from the Court which was initially granted to him by trial court as well as by the appellate court, but subsequently in Civil Revision No. 1732 of 2002 preferred by his rival Bimal Kumar Jain. Order of injunction was set aside and matter also appears referred for some action in administrative side of the High Court against the courts below, who as per order of the revisional court ignored the fact that complainant being a legal practitioner was not entitled for such franchisees. Order of injunction was set aside and matter also appears referred for some action in administrative side of the High Court against the courts below, who as per order of the revisional court ignored the fact that complainant being a legal practitioner was not entitled for such franchisees. The complainant, thereafter, preferred SLP(C) No. 14339 of 2004 which appears dismissed vide order dated 7.1.1.2008 by the Apex Court meanwhile the matter relating to selection of such dealership became sub judice before Apex Court in Transfer Case No. 100 of 2002 besides several other, where in the controversy relating to case in hand was also considered and in Paragraph No. 6.3, there in an order was passed on 7.11.2008 and with respect to the subject matter of the case in hand, it is stated as such: "In the case of Bimal Kumar Jain (Case No. 173/Bihar/2003-RO/Budh-Marg), we are informed that a civil case (Title Suit No. 106/2001), a criminal proceedings and SLP(C) No. 14339/2004 are pending. In view of the above, we do not propose to decide the said case. The validity of the allotment will have to be decided in the pending proceedings." 5. During pendency the title suit filed by opposite party no. 2 as appears from the complaint petition from paragraph No. 19 onwards that at the request of Bimal Kumar Jain negotiation for settlement of the dispute was initiated and at his request the complainant arrived at one of the offices of Indian Oil Corporation, situated in Maurya Lok Complex Building, Patna. On 16.10.2001 alongwith his two Advocate friends Udai Narain Choudhary and Saroj Kumar Upadhyaya are found there besides said Bimal Kumar Jain, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 alongwith some other persons (not named), who during negotiation requested the complainant to withdraw the title suit in order to consider the allotment of dealership of the petrol pump to him, but the complainant was insisting to first consider his claim, only thereafter, he may withdraw the suit. It was not acceptable so, said Bimal Kumar Jain and petitioner nos. 2, 4 & 5 asked the complainant to sign some papers but it was refused and they became furious started abusing the complainant could not succeed in fleeing, at initial stage he was also assaulted by slaps, fists etc. During the course, Bimal Kumar Jain and petitioner no. It was not acceptable so, said Bimal Kumar Jain and petitioner nos. 2, 4 & 5 asked the complainant to sign some papers but it was refused and they became furious started abusing the complainant could not succeed in fleeing, at initial stage he was also assaulted by slaps, fists etc. During the course, Bimal Kumar Jain and petitioner no. 5 took out the pistol and was forced to put his signature on some papers, only thereafter, he could anyhow escape, on such assertion complaint petition was filed before the Court, where complainant was examined on solemn affirmation, where in for the first time in reply to Courts question, the complainant was admitted that he is a practicing Advocate also after recording some statement of other witnesses. During enquiry, the Court took cognizance in the case for the offences giving rise to instant application. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that only in order to put pressure upon the officials and satisfy some personal grudge and vendetta the complaint has been filed with improbable and imaginary story. No such occurrence took place nor the petitioners committed any such wrong, further proceedings against them should be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 while supporting the order submitted that whatever is narrated in the complaint petition regarding earlier developments are sub- judice before competent Civil Court, where they are to be decided, but the happenings taken place in the garb of negotiation for settlement and the treatment, what the complainant and his friends received constitutes criminal offence for which complaint has rightly been filed and proceeded. There are sufficient evidence to proceed with, no interference is required. 8. Undisputedly, in the background of the case, the controversy arising out of advertisement made by Indian Oil Corporation and procedure adopted for selection of the dealers etc. for which civil suit is pending. The complaint petition in hand appears filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 with a case that during negotiation for settlement of the dispute, he was mishandled or forced to sign on some papers. In the complaint petition, there is nothing specific against petitioner no. 1, here Alok Mishra, Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales), even there is nothing about his presence at the spot of such alleged manhandling with the complainant. 2 with a case that during negotiation for settlement of the dispute, he was mishandled or forced to sign on some papers. In the complaint petition, there is nothing specific against petitioner no. 1, here Alok Mishra, Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales), even there is nothing about his presence at the spot of such alleged manhandling with the complainant. Moreover, the manner in which the averments as made in the complaint petition alleging some sort of overt act appears not convincing but highly improbable. It appears an exaggerated statement that some officials shall call the plaintiff of the suit, who is an practicing Advocate also and during negotiation for settlement of the civil dispute, they shall use force or behave in the manner as stated in the complaint petition for no gain or personal interest nothing of the kind appears from anywhere. 9. The entire exercise against the petitioners appears to have been made before the matter was politically highlighted on the ground of allotment of agencies to different persons all over the country to the favourites and otherwise influential persons and became sub-judice before Apex Court, of course for a different purpose to examine the allegations of large scale irregularities, and just to put some sort of pressure upon the officials, who failed to select and recommend the complainant for such franchisees, the criminal proceeding at hand was initiated. 10. It would not be out of place to mention decision of Apex Court in a case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another V/s. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in 2008(1) PLJR 82 (SC) though therein matter in issue was issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the person, but to consider the matter in issue several decisions of the Court relating to exercise of inherent jurisdiction as prescribed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were considered and in Paragraph No. 45 it is stated as such: "The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained." 11. In view of the findings that the petitioners appears dragged in the unwarranted criminal litigation, I failed to restrain myself while interfering in the impugned order which to the extent of the petitioners stand quashed and this application is hereby liable in the manner and extent aforementioned.