JUDGMENT 1. By this application under Section 482 of the criminal procedure code, the applicant is praying for to quash the criminal proceedings i.e. Regular Criminal Case No. 593 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Court no .2 Wardha. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The applicant is charge-sheeted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 201, 307, 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act pursuant to the investigation done in respect of the Crime bearing registration No. 462 of 2010 reported at Wardha (City) Police Station. It is case of the prosecution that, on 29/09/2010, at about 21.30. hours, when the first informant Rajendra Manthanwar, a patwari serving at Tahasil Office, Wardha along with his friend Yogesh Nikam went to the Pan shop situated at Arvi naka to eat betel leaf, the accused persons known by names Bhure, Lakhe, Thamekar and 8 to 10 more persons formed unlawful assembly, surrounded the first informant and threatened to kill the first informant on the pretext that the complainant is always accosting vehicles of the accused, who are in the business of supplying the building materials i.e. Sand, Murum etc., to challan them on the ground of illegally carrying the sand, murum etc. to various places, which led to prosecution resulting in imposition of fine and causing financial loss to them. Suddenly one of the members of the unlawful assembly assaulted Rajendra by means of sword on his head, due to which he sustained an injury over his head. Rajendra lodged the complaint about the incident. 4. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the charge sheet filed against the applicant is nothing but abuse of the process of law as the first informant had not seen the assailant actually giving sword blow. The first informant alleged that the sword blow was given at the instance of Lakhe, Thamekar and Bhure. Learned Advocate contended that the Complaint did not disclose the details of the offenders who had formed an unlawful assembly or how it was formed and role of the present applicant in the assault. Ingredients of the offence by forming unlawful assembly were not stated by the Complainant and therefore, further continuance of the criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. Ingredients of the offence by forming unlawful assembly were not stated by the Complainant and therefore, further continuance of the criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. He prayed for to quash the criminal proceedings as against the applicant herein. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant made a reference to the ruling in the case of SatyanarayanBisanlal Agrwal vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2011 AllMR(Cri) 3087 to argue that if it is futile to continue the prosecution against the accused, proceedings may be quashed. In that case, this court had considered that the accusation was made about the alleged incident on agricultural field at mauja Niralgangamai at 5.50 p.m. While the accused was present through out the day in the Collectorate at Amravati at a far away place and considering the distance between the two places, it was not possible to believe presence of the accused at the spot of incident at 5.50 p.m. Therefore, it was considered futile to continue the prosecution against the accused. Reference is also made to the ruling in the case of FaruquAbdual Jahura and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 AllMR(Cri) 3217 to argue that if facts show that it would be futile exercise to continue the prosecution on the basis of suspicion and slip shod material collected during the course of investigation, inherent power is required to be exercised. In the case cited, there was no material whatsoever to fix the identity of the accused nos. 4 and 5 as offenders and the Investigating Officer had not bothered to hold test identification parade. (I had occasion to decide both the applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.) 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the complaint made was duly investigated and the final report was filed which led to prosecution of the present applicant. Medical Certificate indicated that the injury received by the victim was on left parietal region with displaced fracture noted and the victim was also referred to Neuro Surgeon for further treatment. C.T. scan was done. The medical opinion sought indicated that the injury was grievous and dangerous to life. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the entire group that had formed an unlawful Assembly is responsible to face the prosecution and the prosecution must have fair opportunity to lead the evidence. C.T. scan was done. The medical opinion sought indicated that the injury was grievous and dangerous to life. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the entire group that had formed an unlawful Assembly is responsible to face the prosecution and the prosecution must have fair opportunity to lead the evidence. According to the learned A.P.P., the first informant had raided the Truck bearing registration No. MH-32 B-9828 owned by Arun Damoji Bhure illegally carrying 150 Cubic feet Murum and was challaned to pay fine in the sum of Rs 12,800/-. Uncle of the first informant also received telephonic threat from the accused Bhure that he will kill the first informant. The learned A.P.P. prayed for dismissal of the instant Criminal Application. 7. In my opinion, the Inherent power of the Court is saved with a view to interfere with the proceedings pending before a Criminal Court only if such interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of proceedings before a Court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide but they require great care and caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. A criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce all the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint or First Information Report, merely on the ground that a few ingredients of the offence have not been stated in details, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence. It has to be borne in mind that the criminal law is set in motion by lodging the complaint. The investigation which follows, if effectively and properly done, can reveal additional valuable and material information making out a valid case to book the real culprits and to prosecute the offenders by filing a detailed final report in the Court. 8. It has to be borne in mind that the criminal law is set in motion by lodging the complaint. The investigation which follows, if effectively and properly done, can reveal additional valuable and material information making out a valid case to book the real culprits and to prosecute the offenders by filing a detailed final report in the Court. 8. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ), a petition under section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to the Supreme Court of India. While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down the principles, which may be summarized thus : "1. The High Courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. 2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence. 3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence." 9. It must be noted that the name of the present applicant did figure in the First Information Report along with one Bhure and Lakhe and other 8 to 10 persons, who had formed unlawful assembly. While Bhure uttered the words “Tumhiaamchya roz gaadya pakadta, Aamche nuksan Hote”(you are daily accosting our vehicles causing loss to us), one of them assaulted the first informant on his head by means of sword causing bleeding injury and threatened to kill him. Bhure had also given threat by making telephone call to the uncle of the first informant telling him that his nephew would be murdered. Bhure had also given threat by making telephone call to the uncle of the first informant telling him that his nephew would be murdered. Considering the number of persons accompanied with accused Bhure, Thamekar (Applicant herein) and Lakhe and the dangerous weapon like sword used for to assault the first informant, coupled with the nature of injury, the surrounding circumstances and the threats given prior to and at the time of assault, one may raise an inference as to formation of the unlawful assembly with a common unlawful object. If five or more persons come in a group and if the offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, each member knowing it to be likely that use of dangerous weapon like sword by any or some of them may cause grievous injury, then each of them may be held liable for commission of the offence. Every member of the unlawful assembly becomes vicariously liable for the act done by others. Although the overt act may not be imputed to each of them, each of them under the normal circumstances is deemed to be members of the unlawful assembly when offence is committed in prosecution of the common object. A close Look to the principles stated in Indian oil Corporation’s case (supra), in the light of the submissions at the bar and the facts and circumstances revealed in the present case shows that prosecution must proceed further to its logical end in accordance with law. No plausible and acceptable ground is made out to quash the criminal case pending against the applicant. In the result, the instant Criminal Application is dismissed.