S. In ctealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the di'sti'nction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is euiderwe which is clearbf inconsistent with the cwaisations made, and a case where there is tegal evidenoe which, on appreaation, may or may not support the accusations. When. exerdsing jurisdiction under Sectfon. 482 of the Code, the High Court woutd not ordinarity embark vpon an enquiry whether the euidenoe in questton is retiabie or not or whether on a reasonable appredation of it accusatton would not be sustained. That is the function. of the trial Judge. Judidal process shouki not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Gourt should. be drcumspect andjudidous in exerdsing discretton and shoutd take aU releuant facts and arcumstances into consideratmn before issuing prooess, lest it would. be an. instrument in the hands ofaprwate oomplainant to unteash. vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At fh§same time fhe section. is not an instftiment handed over to an aocused to short-circui't a prosecutton and bring about its sudden death. The soope ofexerase of power under Section 482 of the Gode and the categories ofcases where the High Court may exerdse its power und.er it relating to oogrdzable offences to prevent abuse ofprocess of any oourt or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice ivere set out in some detail by this Court in State ofHajyana v. Ehajan Lal. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). A note of oautfon was, however, added that the pawer should be exerdsed sparingly and ttujt too in the rarest ofrare cases. The Shistratwe categories indicated by this Court are as foUows : (SCCpp. 378-79, para 102)
