Dr. John Kattakkayam v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013/1ST SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4664 of 2008** **---------------------------------[C.P.NO.104/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA]** **................** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **DR.JOHN KATTAKKAYAM, DOCTOR IN CHARGE (FORMERLY), VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, CHEMPANTHOTTY, NOW WORKING AS SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY HOSPITAL, ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. RADHAMANI.K, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL OTHAYOTH HOUSE, THOLOOR, CHUZHALI.P.O, CHEMPANTHOTTY, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2013, THE COURT ON 23/07/2013, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.4664/2008:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE I:**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 29/10/2005 FILED BY THE R.2.**| |---|---| ||**BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON OF KERALA STATE WOMEN'S**| ||**COMMISSION.**| |**ANNEXURE II:**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 02/11/2005 FILED BY THE STAFF**| ||**OF THE CLINIC BEFORE THE SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON,**| ||**CHEMPANTHOTTY.**| |**ANNEXURE III:**|**COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/09/20067 SENT BY THE SENIOR**| ||**VETERINARY SURGEON, CHEMPANTHOTTY TO THE DISTRICT**| ||**ANIMAL HUSBANDARY OFFICER, KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE IV:**|**COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 28/09/2007 FILED BY THE R.2.**| ||**BEFORE THE PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE V:**|**COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 23/02/2008 FILED BY THE R.2.**| ||**BEFORE THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY OFFICER,**| ||**KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE VI:**|**COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 28/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**D.A.HO., KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE VII:**|**COPY OF THE REPORT DT. NIL. PREPARED BY THE SEXUAL**| ||**HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE COMMITTEE IN THE ANIMAL**| ||**HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT, KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE VIII:**|**COPY OF THE REFER REPORT DT. 29/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE S.I. OF POLICE, SREEKANDAPURAM BEFORE THE J.F.C.M.**| ||**COURT, TALIPARAMBA.**| |**ANNEXURE IX:**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 13/06/2008 FILED BY THE R.2.**| ||**BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT, TALIPARAMBA.**| |**ANNEXURE X:**|**COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE R.2.**| |**ANNEXURE XI:**|**COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITNESS KESAVAN,**| ||**S/O. CHANDRANKUTTY.**| |**ANNEXURE XII:**|**COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS KUNHIKANNAN,**| ||**S/O. NARAYANAN.**| |**ANNEXURE XIII:**|**COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS THOMAS,**| ||**S/O. OUSEPH.**| **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.4664/2008-E:** **ANNEXURE XIV: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO.4 DR. KUNJIKKANNAN. ANNEXURE XV: COPY OF THE SUMMONS DT. 22/10/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE J.F.C.M. COURT, TALIPARAMBA. ANNEXURE XVI: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25/01/2008 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4664 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2013. ## ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure IX complaint and all proceedings in C.P. 104 of 2008 pending before the JFCM Court, Taliparamba quashed. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Senior Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Alakode. He was in additional charge of Veterinary Poly clinic, Chempanthotty from 21.9.2007 to 22.9.2008. During that period the second respondent herein was working as a part-time sweeper on daily wages. She was initially engaged as part-time sweeper on daily wages in April, 2004 by Dr.Arumadas, who was then in charge of the office. The allegation is that after Dr.Arumadas was transferred from the clinic, the second respondent was erratic in attending the office and she neglected the duties attached to that office. 2 Crl.M.C.4664/2008. Proceedings were initiated wherein it was decided to discontinue her service. She approached this court and obtained favourable orders. Irritated by the conduct of the superior officers, it is stated that the second respondent filed a complaint dated 29.10.2005 before the Chair Person of the Kerala State Women's Commission which is produced as Annexure I. In fact it is pointed out that unable to put up with the pranks of the second respondent, the staff had preferred a complaint against her which is produced as Annexure II. The second respondent was in the habit of sending frequent complaints to higher authorities against the doctors in charge without any rhyme or reason. After the petitioner took charge, Annexure-IV petition was filed before him. On enquiry, it was found that the allegation in Annexure IV is totally false and that the second respondent was irregular in attending to her duties, however, she claimed wages for those days also on which she did not actually work at all. Since her claim was not Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 3 in accordance with law, it could not be accepted. This infuriated the second respondent, who threatened that she would see that proceedings are taken against the petitioner. Complaining of ill-treatment, the second respondent filed Annexure V complaint before the District Animal Husbandary Officer, Kannur against the petitioner. The said authority conducted an enquiry and found that the allegations in the complaint filed by the second respondent were totally baseless and lacked bonafides. However, an enquiry was ordered by the Sexual Harassment at Work place Committee, and the Committee after detailed enquiry submitted Annexure VII report. Annexure VII report in detail considered the complaint of the second respondent, and it had taken evidence and after evaluation of the materials before it, had come to the conclusion that the conduct of the second respondent was highly reprehensible and she is in the habit of filing false complaints against doctors without any justification. Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 4 Undaunted by the report of the Committee, the second respondent filed a private complaint which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after detailed investigation filed a refer report. The investigation by the police also revealed that there is no substance in the complaint filed by the second respondent and it was with ulterior motive that she had filed complaints against the superior officer and a refer report was filed. The second respondent is alleged to have filed a a protest complaint which is produced as Annexure IX. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance examined witnesses and issued summons to the petitioner. The case was numbered as C.P.104 of 2008. Summons dated 22.10.2008 was served on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner assails the proceedings mainly on three grounds. They are, i) the complainant is in the habit of making frivolous complaints and in the two enquiries conducted by two competent authorities it was found that the Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 5 complaints were frivolous and the complainant was in the habit of preferring complaints with unfounded allegations, ii) during the enquiry conducted by the Sexual Harassment at Work place Committee, it was found that the conduct of the second respondent is such that it is very evident that her only intention is to drag the matter and continue to harass the petitioner and iii) even though notice was served on the second respondent, she had not entered appearance and that shows her indifferent attitude to the proceedings. 4. In support of his contention that the petitioner need not wait till the charges are framed and can approach this court for appropriate reliefs on receipt of summons, reliance was placed on the decision reported in Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd. ((2002) 2 SCC 383). For the proposition that when it is revealed that proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and interests of justice warrants interference by this court, the power under Section Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 6 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised, reliance was placed on the decisions reported in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram ((2008) 8 SCC 77) and Priya Vrat Singh v. Shyam Ji Sahai ((2008) 8 SCC 232). 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the petition pointed out that all that the court below has done is to take cognizance of the private complaint and there is ample opportunity for the petitioner at the appropriate stage to seek discharge. It is after being satisfied that there were materials to proceed against the petitioner, who is the accused, that summons was issued to him. No reasons are made out as of now to interfere with the decision taken by the court below to go on with the proceedings. 6. That the second respondent is in the habit of filing complaints after complaints against various doctors and others is evident from the records. She makes unfounded allegations and then remains indifferent to the same. In the Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 7 enquiry conducted by the Animal Husbandry Officer, it is found that the complaint is without any basis and that it has been filed with oblique motive. It was found that the second respondent is infact harassing the various officers by preferring frivolous complaints and considerable time has to be wasted on enquiring into such baseless complaints filed by the second respondent. The specific finding of the Animal Husbandary Officer is that due to the acts committed by the second respondent, the functioning of the unit itself has come to a grinding halt and it is under the threat of closure. It cautions that unless the activities of the second respondent are prevented, it may lead to serious consequences. 7. The petitioner has also produced a report of the Committee to enquire into the complaints of harassment of women on work place. Annexure VII is the report by the Committee. A reading of the report shows the dialatary tactics adopted by the second respondent and ultimately the Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 8 Committee concludes that the facts narrated in the complaint filed by the second respondent raising allegations against the petitioner are absolutely false and without any basis and is ill-motivated. 8. It was thereafter that the complainant filed a private complaint before the JFCM court concerned. The said court made over the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police concerned, after enquiry, filed Annexure VIII refer report pointing out that the allegations are without any basis and are false. Then the second respondent is seen to have filed a protest complaint. 9. After following the necessary procedures, the court below felt that there were materials to proceed against the petitioner and therefore issued summons to him. 10. The ground on which the proceedings are attacked have already been mentioned. It can be seen from the above narration that the Animal Husbandry Officer as well Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 9 as the Committee constituted as already mentioned have on detailed enquiry found that the complaints filed by the second respondent are frivolous and vexatious and have been filed with ulterior motive. Both the authorities came to the conclusion that the allegations are without any basis and were intended only to harass the officers concerned. In fact the Animal Husbandry Officer points out that the activities of the second respondent has reached such a stage that the Unit is under the threat of closure. Annexure VII report of the committee which showed considerable patience in dealing with the matter as could be seen from the said report ultimately came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the second respondent are absolutely false and that she even went to the extent of blackmailing the petitioner. 11. The report filed by the Animal Husbandry Officer shows that the second respondent was indifferent to her duties and was not amenable to the lawful orders issued Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 10 by her superior officers. It is also to be noticed that the private complaint filed by the second respondent was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, filed a refer report. 12. It can be thus seen that the three authorities found that the complaint of the second respondent is without any basis and were made with the sole intention of harassing the petitioner. 13. In the decision reported in Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd. ((2002) 2 SCC 383), it has been held that in order to get relief of setting aside the proceedings, it is not necessary for the person concerned to wait till the charges are framed. In the decision reported in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the court enumerated the circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised. The relevant portion reads as follows: Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 11 “108. 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 extraordinary 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 Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 12 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.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 F.I.R. 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 Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 13 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 oncerned 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.” 14. In the decision reported in Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram ((2008) 8 SCC 77) it has been held as follows: “6. Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submitted that the proceedings were sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The appellants and Ravindra Kumar Singh stood on similar footing. His case was disposed of by this Court and earlier in his case the High Court had declined to interfere and he had moved this Court. It was submitted that in the background facts it is clear that with a view Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 14 to harass the appellants for taking action against him, the respondent No. 1 had lodged the complaint. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 State supported the order of the High Court. 7. “6. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It 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 the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 15 civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution,all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videntur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist.Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 16 would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 7. In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960 (3) SCR 388) this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:(AIR para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e. g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its 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. 8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 17 evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).A note of caution Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 18 was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) '102. (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 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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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 Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 19 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.' 9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 20 factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.(See Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (1964 (2) SCR 336). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.” 15. In the decision reported in Priya Vrat Singh v. Shyam Ji Sahai ((2008) 8 SCC 232) it was held as follows: “10. The parameters for exercise of power under Section 482 have been laid down by this Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 21 ## Court in several cases. 11. “19. The Section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It 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 the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise.Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of Justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 22 the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 20. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 23 principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, moreso when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.” 16. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is considered to be very wide and extensive. But the power is exercised only under the exceptional circumstances. On going through the said provision, it can be seen that normally the power under the said section is exercised under three contingencies. They are: i) to give effect to an order Code, ii) to prevent abuse of process of court and iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 24 As far as (ii) and (iii) are concerned, they work in both ways. They seek to prevent unmerited litigations and proceedings against innocent persons, but they also ensure that a just cause is not thrown out. Unless there are compelling circumstances, normally the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not exercised to quash the proceedings which are in the stage of investigation or enquiry etc. However, if it is found that the proceedings are sheer abuse of process of court and interests of justice demands the exercise of the said power, then granting relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will be justified. 17. The question that arises for consideration is whether such a contingency exists in the present case. 18. As already noticed, the authorities concerned have found that the second respondent is in the habit of filing frivolous complaints and her conduct became such a nuisance that the unit was almost under the verge of closure. This would be clear from the report of the Animal Husbandry Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 25 Officer who initially conducted an enquiry into the matter. The records show that the second respondent was irregular in attending the office and was not willing to obey the lawful orders issued by her superior officers. She made unjustified and unlawful demands for wages, i.e., she claimed wages for those days on which she not even attended the office. It must be remembered here that she was working on a temporary basis on daily wages. The Animal Husbandry Officer also found that the attempt of the petitioner is to blackmail the petitioner and get things done. 19. One cannot omit to note that the Committee constituted for enquiring into the grievance of women employees also found no basis for the complaint filed by the second respondent. The police after investigation found that there was no substance in the complaint. As far as the JFCM Court, Taliparamba is concerned, on getting protest complaint, court had nothing else to do but to take sworn Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 26 statement of the defacto complainant and proceed with the matter. 20. Merely because summons has been issued does not mean that proceedings cannot be challenged. True, the petitioner can plead discharge at the appropriate stage and contend that no summons ought to have been issued to the petitioner to appear. The offences attributed to the petitioner are triable by a Sessions Court and presently the case is in the committal stage. Viewed in the light of various materials produced by the petitioner showing the conduct of the complainant, there seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings namely C.P. 104 of 2008 is gross abuse of the process of court and is intended only to harass the petitioner. 21. Under these circumstances, it will not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to wait till the charge is sought to be framed and seek appropriate relief. It is also Crl.M.C.4664/2008. 27 significant to notice that even though notice was served on the second respondent in this case, she has not chosen to appear and has displayed an indifferent attitude. This would show that she is not honest in prosecuting the matter and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, her only intention is to cause nuisance and to harass the petitioner. In the result, this petition is allowed, issuance of summons is set aside and the protest complaint, namely, Annexure IX stands quashed, all further proceedings in C.P.104 of 2008 pending before the JFCM Court, Taliparamba shall stand dropped and the petitioner shall stand discharged. - P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.