ivil Appeal No 3658 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 3031989 of the Patna High Court in CWJ No 34 of 1989
Pramod Swarup for the Appellants
MC Bhandare NP AK Goel and Ms Gyan Sudha Misra for the Respondents
SP Kalra and Shailendra Bhardwaj for All India Insti tute of Medical Sciences
GL Sanghi and A Sharan for the Intervenor
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA J
Special leave granted
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th of March 1989 made by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court was moved by a set of medical graduates who are respondents before us challenging the prospectus for admission into the post graduate medical admission published by the Controller of Examination cum Additional Director Health Services Department of Bihar for the year 1989 on the allegation that the prescription that a candidate for the purpose of getting admitted to the Post Graduate Course must complete his or her house 170 job of 12 months on or before 31st May 1989 was contrary to the directions of this Court in the case of Dr Dinesh Kumar  Ors
vs Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad  Ors  The High Court found that the time frame set by this Court in the reported order was not ad hered to in the prospectus and therefore allowed the writ petition by mandamus directing the State and its officers not to permit any candidate to take the Post Graduate Medi cal Test if he had not the requisite qualification of com pleting 12 months  house job on 1st May 1989
It further quashed the prospectus to the extent that the cut off date of eligibility was fixed as 3151989
The State of Bihar and its Officers who were respondents in the High Court are in appeal and their main contention is that the All India Entrance Examination for Post Graduate Medical Courses held by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences was not conducted in time as fixed by this Court and intimation of the results was sent late
It was further argued before us that several States have also not been complying with the time frame indicated by this Court in the reported order and as such the scheme formulated by the Court is not being implemented properly
In view of such specific allegations particularly against the examining body which has been entrusted with the work by this Court notice was issued to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Institute had entered appearance through counsel and has filed its affidavit
In the reported order it was stated by us What remains now to be dealt with is the finalisation of the programme relating to the selection examination
As already decided the selection examination shall be conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi
The announcement for holding of the selection examination shall be made on October 1 of every year and a full four weeks  time would be made available to candidates for making their applications
After the applica tions are received not later than six weeks from October 1 the same would be scrutinised and duly processed and admit caros would be issued
Examination shall be held on the second Sunday of January
The results of examination shall be announced within four weeks from holding of the examination
Admis sion shall commence two weeks after the decla ration of results
The last date for taking admission shall be six weeks from the date of the announcement of 171 results but the Head of every institution shall be entitled to condone delay upto seven days for reasons shown and grounds recorded in special cases
The courses of study shall commence in every institution providing such study throughout the country from May 2
Notification announcing examination publica tion of result and allotment of place of admission keeping preference in view and our directions regarding preference of lady candi dates in places of proximity to residence shall be published in two successive issues of one national paper in English having large circulation in every State and at least in two local papers in the language of the State as quickly as possible
 Obviously the relevant directions have not been followed by the examining body for the current year
Similarly the State of Bihar did not follow the directions of this Court while drawing up its prospectus
If the courses of study are to commence from May 2 the last qualifying date could not have been fixed as May 31 1989
It has been reiterated before us that several States have not been following the directions
Instead of issuing notice to the States and Union Territories for examining the correctness of the allegations of delay and non compliance of the directions we have thought it appropriate to indicate that everyone including the States the Union Territories and other au thorities running Medical Colleges with Post Graduate Courses are bound by our order and must strictly follow the time schedule indicated in paragraph 6 of the order
We have not proceeded against the defaulting authorities for viola tion of this Court s order hoping that there would be no recurrence of it but we would like to administer a warning to everyone that if it is brought to our notice at any time in future that there has been violation a serious view of such default shall be taken
We hope and trust that everyone concerned shall comply with the time frame strictly and there would be no lapse in this regard in future
Counsel for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences has expressed regrets for what has happened and has assured us that there would be no default in future
Counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice the position that in the previous year the State of Bihar had taken the stand that the extension was not possible in view of this Court s directions and the State s stand this year was to the contrary
Counsel for the State of Bihar has regretted this position
We find that those who had quali fied beyond the cut off date in the previous year have taken 172 examination in terms of the prospectus of this year along with the new group
The mistake of the State in fixing a date beyond the cut off date fixed by this Court has obvi ously misled a group of candidates
In these circumstances we are of the view that it is in the interest of all that the mistake committed by the State of Bihar should be con doned and on the basis of the result of the selection exami nation with 31st of May 1989 as the cut off date admis sions for this year should be permitted
We agree with the High Court that the view it has taken on the basis of this Court s directions was the most appropriate one but in the special circumstances referred to above we have made a departure confined to the present year only
The appeal is disposed of with these directions
NPV Petition disposed of


Summary:
The criminal complaint instituted by the appellant was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate for offences under sections 494 496498 A 112 114 120 120 B and 34 IPC
It was alleged that the first respondent had married the second respondent while the proceedings for decree of divorce were still pending and that the marriage was performed secretly in the presence of respondent Nos 3 to 6
The High Court however on the application of the first respondent quashed the proceedings before the Magistrate
Allowing the appeal by special leave HELD The High Court was in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with
167C D In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure by the High Court to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous vexatious or oppressive
It is not necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not
The complaint has to be read as a whole
166G 167A In the instant case there were specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of
It was for the complainant to substan tiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage
In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the com plaint was frivolous there was no jurisdiction for the High Court to interfere
167D E Sharda Prasad Sinha vs State of Bihar   Trilok 166 Singh  Ors
vs Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala