JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 566 of 1982, under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agra, on the ground that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complaint was filed by Opp. Party No. 1 Smt. Somvati against the applicants, and others under Sections 147 and 323 1.P.C. with the allegations that Opp. Parties used to ask the applicant to bring money from her parents. She was often beaten by the applicants and they treated her with cruelty. On the day of incident, i.e. 17.12.1981, all the accused assaulted her with kicks and fists. On hearing her cries Kali Charan, Chhavi Ram, Kailashi, Jai Singh, Natthi and Suresh attracted to the scene of occurrence and they rescued her. Her report was not taken down by the Police of P.S. Nibora saying that it was a family dispute and did not require interference by the Police. Thereafter she sent an application to S.P. and a copy to S.S.P., Agra on 18.12.1981.
2. The complainant Opp. Party No. 1 examined herself and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate found a pritma facie made out against the accused-applicants and accordingly he summoned them by the order dated 30.1.1982. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the husband had already lodged a report on 14.4.1981 under Section 498 I.P.C. against one Lakhan Singh who was having an affair with Opp.Party No. 1 and had taken her away and that she has been living with him. The present complaint has been filed in retaliation of that F.I.R. to pressurize the applicants so that they may not have Lakhan Singh and Opp. Party No. 1 arrested. Learned Counsel for the applicants also stated that the assertions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application are uncontroverted as no counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party No. 1.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicants also relied on the case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604 in support of his contention that the allegation made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the criminal proceedings instituted against them are manifestly ntalafide and malacious with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite them due to personal grudge.
4. I have given my anxious thought to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and I find that the submission made by the learned Counsel is not tenable inasmuch as in the present case, the learned Magistrate after taking evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took the cognizance. At this stage it will be premature to record a finding that the complaint filed by Opp. Party No. 1 against the applicants is malafide and malacious instituted with an ulterior motive. Prima facie the complaint discloses commission of offence and the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in summoning the accused applicants for the offences mentioned in the order.
5. The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) in the following words :
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court of act according to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint."
6. The learned Counsel for the applicants has not pointed out any special or extenuating circumstance to exercise the inherent powers for quashing the complaint. It is premature to record a finding at this stage to the effect that the proceedings are malacious or have been filed due to any malafide against the applicants. Unless evidence of the parties is recorded in the trial before the Court concerned, on the material now available on record, no finding about innocence or guilt of the applicant can be recorded in the present proceedings. The application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.