JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - Crl.M.No.11615 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-6110 of 2013 1. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.505, dated 3.12.2012, under Sections 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that petitioner and complainant are husband and wife. There was matrimonial discord between them. Earlier case was registered by complainant-wife against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. On 1.10.2012, complainant alongwith her mother Smt. Basso Bai and Bua Smt. Omwati had come to the Court for attending the hearing in maintenance case as she had also filed a separate case for claiming maintenance. However, when complainant alongwith his mother and Bua had come out of the Court after attending hearing and when they were on the gate of the Court, petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused Vikas met them and both of them raised threat to them that they should withdraw dowry case filed against them and they also tried to snatch 1-1/2 years old daughter of the complainant. Petitioner-accused is a police employee and hence, alarm was raised by complainant and her mother due to this behaviour of petitioner-accused. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that earlier similar complaint was made by the complainant, Annexure P2, and, however, on enquiry no truth was found in the same and the complaint was filed. Further contends that now on the similar facts, another complaint was given and the present FIR was lodged. 5. However, perusal of averments made in the complaint and the FIR prima facie shows that offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against petitioner-accused, i.e., husband of the complainant. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed against petitioner-accused. Co-accused was found innocent by the Deputy Superintendent of police and hence, challan was filed only against the present petitioner-accused. 6. The scope for quashing chargesheet at the initial stage of investigation/trial under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is no more res integra. It is well settled that if on the bare reading of the FIR, the offences are made out, no order can be made for quashment of criminal proceedings. 6. The scope for quashing chargesheet at the initial stage of investigation/trial under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is no more res integra. It is well settled that if on the bare reading of the FIR, the offences are made out, no order can be made for quashment of criminal proceedings. Criminal prosecution can only be quashed in the rarest of rare cases, e.g. if it is proved that the same was lodged maliciously or vexatiously in order to wreak vengeance etc. Law has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, wherein it was observed as under:- “105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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 F.I.R. 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. 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 F.I.R. 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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.” 7. The same law was reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent cases, i.e., Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1119] : 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 92 and Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh and others, [2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2870 : 2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 3126] : 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 38: 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 262: (2011) 6 SCC 102 . 8. In a recent judgment rendered in Jeffery J.Diermeier and another v. State of West Bengal and another, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 2972] : 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 183, Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “16.Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible not desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice. 9. Hence, in view of the aforementioned legal proposition, this Court is to see as to whether present FIR is liable to be quashed. As already observed above, prima facie case for offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against the present petitioner-accused. Merely, on the ground that earlier no action was taken by the police on the complaint of respondent-wife, it cannot be said that the FIR registered on the basis of another similar complaint made by complainant is liable to be quashed. 10. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Deepak for quashing of FIR is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.