Jagdish Chandra, J.
(1) This petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 put up by the petitioner S.D. Salwan prays for the quashing of Fir No. 17 of 19il as also the consequent prosecution launched by the state against him through Police Station Rajinder Nagar under S. 506 Ipc in case State v. S.D. Salwan pending in the court of Shri Nepal Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
(2) The perusal of the First Information Report No. 17 dated 8-1-1981 shows the complaint having been made on 7-1-1981 by one C.L. Chawla, General Secretary of Salwan Public School Teachers Association. The allegations are contained in paragraph 5 of the said complaint which reads as follows:
'THE injured employee lying in a precarious state of health in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital also feels insecure because people (family members) attending to him have also been threatened. They have been asked to change their statement to the police or face dire consequences. We request provision of police security to him in the hospital.'
(3) It would be seen that the name of the injured employee referred to in paragraph 5 of the complaint has not been mentioned nor the name of his family members to whom the threats are alleged to have been given. The challan in its column No. 6 gives the names and addresses of the witnesses for the persecution in this case but it is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also conceded at the Bar by Mr. Sodhi representing the State that none of them includes the injured nor any of his family members. The aforesaid injured person is an injured person in some other case and not in the case in hand but threats are alleged to have been given to him by the petitioner as also to his family members. The injured and his family members to whom threats are alleged to have been issued in the aforesaid case could be best persons to depose as witnesses in this case and in the absence of their statements the case of the prosecution just l(oks sham.) This inference is further fortified from the fact that the aforesaid complaint Was made on 7-1-1981 to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration and not to the police and furthermore on that day as many as 40 police and constables including some head constables had been deputed by the police in and around the premises of Salwan Public School, New Delhi on the request of the management of this school and a bank-draft for Rs. 14,649.00 was issued by the school management in favor of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for the charges of the police deployed in the said school for the protection of the school's properties from 1-1-1981 to 73-1-1981 except on 3rd, 4th and 5th January 1981. If as may as 40 police constables were posted in or around the premises of this school on 7-1-1981, the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to have the temerity to issue threats to anyone as is stated in the statements of the witnesses subsequently recorded by the police. If any thing had happened the same could not have gone unnoticed and if noticed the police cases would have been registered on the basis of the same but nothing of the sort appears to have happened. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid complaint appears to be false and without any foundation. There is a letter dated 21-4-1984 by then Lt. Governor Mr. Jagmohan wherefrom the relevant para is reproduced as under :
'ANOTHER connected matter pertaining to this College is pending criminal cases against some members of the Salwan Management. These cases were by-product of the strike. Earlier, I had sent a note to the Secretary (Home) indicating that if the Director (Prosecution) had recommended withdrawal of cases, the same should be withdrawn. This will help in the return of normalcy and enable us to bring about friendly relations amongst the management, staff and the students.'
(4) The aforesaid relevant paragons to show that a number of criminal cases had come up by way of by-product of the strike in this school and the withdrawal of all those cases had been recommended for bringing about the the return of normalcy as also to bring about the friendly relations amongst management, staff and the students.
(5) The aforesaid case in question appears to be not only false and with out foundation but also meant for the unnecessary harassment or persecution of the petitioner and in the exercise inherent powers of the High Court mentioned in S. 482 Cr. P.C. the same should not be allowed to continue any further ill as much as that is repugnant to the conscience of justice and the ends of justice should not be allowed to be offended by the continuance thereof. The observations recorded by the Supreme Court in the authority reported as State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others : 1977CriLJ1125 are very germane and apposite on this point and the perusal thereof shows that after setting out the provision of law contained in S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 these observations were made and are now reproduced as below :
'IN the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.'
(6) So, looking to the allegations of the prosecution and the nature of evidence and the witnesses and the underlying harassment and persecution of the petitioner, the proceedings in the aforesaid case against the petitioner pending in the court of Shri Nepal Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi are quashed.