JUDGMENT This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Dr. Katari Sunil Kumar in C.C.No.558 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, to quash the proceeding therein. 2. Dr. B.Hema Nalini-1st respondent is working as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Itikyala, Mahaboobnagar District. Dr. Katari Sunil Kumar-petitioner is working as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Manopadu, Mahaboobnagar District. Since they are working in the same district, they are acquainted with each other. Both of them stay in Kurnool Town. They got their respective internet connections at their residences. Dr. B.Hema Nalini-1st respondent lodged a report with Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad, alleging that she received obscene messages from Dr. Katari Sunil Kumarpetitioner to her e-mail address. The Cyber Crime Police Station, D.D., Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2009 for the offence under Section 509 IPC. The crime came to be transferred to Kurnool III Town Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. The Station House Officer, Kurnool III Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.186 of 2009. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Allagadda, Kurnool District, took up investigation, seized the laptop of the petitioner/accused and sent the same to F.S.L. The investigation done by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Allagadda, revealed of there being a professional rivalry between Smt. Dr. B.Hema Nalini-1st respondent and Dr. Katari Sunil Kumar-petitioner and therefore, he filed final report in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, treating the case as Action Dropped. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the final report, which reads as hereunder: “Further investigation in to the matter, disclosed that there was some professional enmity between the accused and the complainant at their working places over an issue of transfer of one ANM Surekha Kumari who was working with the complainant was not relieved for the services to the accused. The enmity is known to all and there was a talk that the complainant had high handed behaviour with her subordinates. The complainant and the accused are in the age groups of 54 and 23 years respectively and sending of emails on the email I.D. of the accused to the complainant is the question of doubt and on verification and it could not be ascertained whether the accused had transmitted them to the complainant or not. The complainant and the accused are in the age groups of 54 and 23 years respectively and sending of emails on the email I.D. of the accused to the complainant is the question of doubt and on verification and it could not be ascertained whether the accused had transmitted them to the complainant or not. Basing on the prima facie only the arrest was made on the available evidence. The opinion of the Expert was forwarded to the trial Court and the copy of the same was collected. On examining the opinion furnished by the Expert there are different messages including of Dr. Sunil (accused) as User names and there are several obscene images in gif & jpg file formats were found. The DATA retrieved from the Laptop has different images and messages; the expert is not clear and can not be connected whether the MAC address furnished by the BSNL in the end User’s details will not clearly indicate about the User’s details from the complainant and the accused. Even the remnants of the disputed/obscene emails were found in the Laptop of the accused person (as per the FSL report) which may not be connecting to the accused. Even some pornographic contents also found in the Laptop which were not opened by the accused on the basic interrogation made before his arrest. It appears that in order to take some kind of vengeance by the subordinate staff was made to defame the accused. In view of the above facts, proposals sent to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool for according permission to drop further action against the alleged accused. As such the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool accorded the permission to drop further action vide cited reference 2. The copy of proceedings is herewith enclosed for favour of kind perusal. Hence, I request the Hon’ble Magistrate to treat the case as A.D. and issue proceedings accordingly. R.C.C. notice was served on the complainant is herewith enclosed.” Dr. B.Hema Nalini-1st respondent filed a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, contending that the emails received by her are generated from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. She also enclosed the hard copies of mails, dated 14.11.2008, dated 18.02.2009 and 10.04.2009 to her complaint. For better appreciation, I may refer para.8 of the complaint, which reads as hereunder: “8. The investigation was entrusted to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Allagadda. She also enclosed the hard copies of mails, dated 14.11.2008, dated 18.02.2009 and 10.04.2009 to her complaint. For better appreciation, I may refer para.8 of the complaint, which reads as hereunder: “8. The investigation was entrusted to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Allagadda. The investigating officer seized the laptop computer model No.pp29L and reference No.07146 of the accused from the residence of the accused and it has been forwarded to the Director, F.S.L., Hyderabad through the Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2009. The Director of F.S.L. sent the report in the form of compressive disc (C.D.) with a hard copy containing the relevant material. The F.S.L. Report clinchingly evidences that mail identification rijwanthsingh@yahoo.in is used from the laptop computer of accused. The mail dated 10.4.2009 is sent from the laptop computer of the accused. The mail I.D. rijwanthsingh@yahoo.in which was used for sending the mails to the complainant on 10.4.2009 is used for sending the mails dated 18.2.2009. The word “HAAI” used in the mail dated 14.11.2008 is used in all other subsequent mails with the very same spelling, which includes “aa”. The said spelling is unique and it is not normally used spelling. The mail dated 10.4.2009 carried the mail dated 18.2.2009. The above said factors establish that the mail was generated from the computer of the accused and they are sent by accused to the complainant. The investigating officer without looking into the material available and without collecting the further required information falsely filed the report dropping further action. He did not approach the complainant for the purpose of any information, but falsely stated that the complainant did not provide necessary information on the ground that the mail information was wiped off. But it is not a fact. Even now the mail information is available in the mail identification of the complainant. Though there is no internet connection and telephone connection at Primary Health Centre, Itikyala, the place of working of the complainant, the investigating officer falsely stated that the complainant could not provide mail information from the computer of the office. The age of accused is about 32 years and the age of complainant is 46 years. But the investigating officer falsely gave their ages as 23 and 54 years respectively. The material collected by the investigating officer is sufficient for satisfying the ingredients of penal provisions. The age of accused is about 32 years and the age of complainant is 46 years. But the investigating officer falsely gave their ages as 23 and 54 years respectively. The material collected by the investigating officer is sufficient for satisfying the ingredients of penal provisions. If at all there is any doubt the investigating officer would have clarified by further investigation into the matter. Having satisfied that the mails sent to the complainant were generated from the computer of the accused, he went wrong in saying that it is not possible to know that the accused sent the mails. Therefore, the complainant files this complaint.” 3. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of Dr. B.Hema Nalini-1st respondent and proceeded to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 509 IPC and registered the case as C.C.No.558 of 2011. Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Dr. Katari Sunil Kumar to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.558 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 4. Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ complainant. 5. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused contends that there is no assurance that emails received by the 1st respondent/ complainant are from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.558 of 2011 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that F.S.L. Report does not establish of the email messages received by the complainant are from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused, in which case, the petitioner/accused cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email messages received by the 1st respondent/complainant. The learned Senior Counsel took me to the final report submitted by the investigating officer in Crime No.186 of 2009 of Kurnool III Town P.S. and also some of the email messages in support of his contention that the email messages do not establish of their emanating from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. 6. The learned Senior Counsel took me to the final report submitted by the investigating officer in Crime No.186 of 2009 of Kurnool III Town P.S. and also some of the email messages in support of his contention that the email messages do not establish of their emanating from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. 6. Sri Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the 1st respondent/complainant filed hard copies of email messages received from the internet protocol number connected to the land phone provided by BSNL and that itself is sufficient to infer that email messages containing the obscene material are received by the 1st respondent/complainant from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. Learned counsel took me to the list of email messages emanated from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. By referring this list, it is contended by the learned counsel that laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused has Internet Protocol No.117119249115. 7. Before dwelling deep into the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to note the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 9. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ), the Supreme 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 of the proceedings; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. In State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 ), the Supreme Court observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been vested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. 11. In Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590 ), the Supreme Court observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 12. The accusations levelled against the petitioner/accused is that he sent email messages containing lecherous and obscene words through his laptop/computer to the 1st respondent/ complainant. During the course of investigation, the police seized the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. The laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused has Internet Connection provided by the BSNL. The BSNL has given media access control address to the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. During the course of investigation, the police seized the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. The laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused has Internet Connection provided by the BSNL. The BSNL has given media access control address to the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. The Internet Protocol Number assigned to the petitioner/accused is 117119249115. The copies of the messages received by the 1st respondent/complainant to her email address have been placed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant during the course of arguments. The email messages are emanated from the internet protocol number provided to the petitioner/accused by the BSNL. Therefore, it cannot be said prima facie that there is no material to show that the email messages received by the 1st respondent/complainant to her email address are not from the laptop/computer of the petitioner/accused. The learned Magistrate considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 509 IPC. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the order impugned in the Criminal Petition. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 27.01.2012 vide Crl.P.M.P.No.498 of 2012 shall stand vacated.