1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. So far as the contention of the petitioner in regard to his right to lead evidence in defence even at the stage of framing charge is concerned, the same is concluded against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.) : (2004) 7 SCC 338 [LQ/SC/2004/936 ;] , at p. 343, para 14 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927 : (2004) 7 Scale 137 [LQ/SC/2004/936 ;] . However, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005( 1) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.) : (2005) 1 SCC 568 [LQ/SC/2004/1345] : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, wherein at para 29, this Court said as follows : (SCC p. 581)

"29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 [LQ/SC/1990/744] ]."

3. Based on the above it is argued that it is open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the complaint filed by the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that even this is not open to the petitioner because of the fact that there is no proceedings as yet initialed against the petitioner herein. We express no opinion on this. If the petitioner desired to file any such petition as stated above we cannot preclude him from doing so.

5. With the above observation, the special leave petition is dismissed.