JUDGMENT : ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent including A.C. to S.C. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7. Also gone through Annexure-3, complaint filed on behalf of respondent no.7 on the basis of which Buxar Town P. S. Case no.184 of 2012 has been registered. After going through the same, it is evident that no prima facie offence is coming out there from against any of the accused. The narration may give awe of the complainant, but so far prosecution is concerned that is to be with regard to an offence committed by the accused on particular date in particular way contrary to the spirit of law against the Statutory provision. The complainant had gone to such extent that she had also dragged the then Registrar as well as Executive Officer to be an accused without having any sort of allegation against them. 2. From different Annexures more particularly Annuxure-4, it is evident that at an earlier occasion one Victor Goyal, who happens to be witness in this present case had launched Complaint Case no.25C of 2005 with the similar assertion which found quashed vide order dated 13.04.2007 under Cr. Misc. No.9571 of 2006. It is also evident from Annexure-1 that the respondent no.7/ complainant along with Victor Goyal complainant of Annexure-4 along with Anil Jones had filed Title Suit no.30 of 2005 asking for declaration of permission letter dated 09.11.2004, illegal as well as in contravention of law, for granting ad interim injunction along with ancillary relief, but till today even after expiry of nine consecutive years, respondent no.7/ complainant along with other could not be able to get even ad interim injunction. The aforesaid Title Suit happens to be against the petitioner and others. 3. In a decision AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Hariyana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. The Hon’ble Apex Court has identified following categories including others wherein prosecution can be quashed and those are :– “(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. (3) Where the uncontroveretd 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, on 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 grounds for proceedings 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 proceedings 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 malafide 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.” 4. The aforesaid criterions have been identified whereupon quashing is permissible either under inherent power in terms of Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Thus, for want of prima facie case visualizing from the Annexure-3, instant prosecution appears to be bad and on account thereof F.I.R. of Buxar Town P. S. Case no.184 of 2012 relating to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Petition is allowed.