JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This is an application by the accused in complaint case No. ICC 2 of 1971 in the Court of the S.D.M. Nawapara made u/s 561-A. Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings against him. 2. The opposite party filed complaint case against the Petitioner in the Court of S.D.M. Nawapara on 7-1-1971. Which as registered as Case No. ICC 2 of 1971. His case is that the Petitioner committed an offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code on the basis of the following allegations: The accused came to the shop of the complaint at Khariar Road on 5-1-1968 and placed order for 692 bags of Mohua flower each weighing 75 k.gs. at the rate of Rs. 55.00 per bag. Thus the total amount payable by the accused was Rs. 38,758.00 which the accused promised to pay within 3 months from the date of receipt of 692 bags of Mohua flower. The complainant knew the accused from before as a business man dealing with Mohua flower. He believed in good faith the accused and delivered the goods to him, under 4 separate consignments, 2 consignments being sent on 20-1-1968, 3rd on 30-1-1968 and 4th on 10-2-1968. All these consignments were received by the accused in good condition. The accused paid Rs. 20,500/- in 4 instalments and promised to pay the rest which he never fulfilled after taking time for payment on certain flimsy grounds. The complaint alleges that he delivered the Mohua flower to the accused in good faith believing his representation and promise. What that representation was which induced him to deliver 4 consignments of Mohua flower has, however, not been stated in the complaint petition. The complaint petition was filed on 7-1-1971 about more than 3 years after the date when the offence is said to have been committed. 3. In his initial deposition the complainant stated as follows: I am a partner of the firm in the name and style of Asok Kumar Rasiklal and Company dealing with Mahua flowers. The accused is partner in the firm in the name and style 'Seth Mathura Das Kaluram Mundra' dealing with Mohua in Gondia in Maharastra, That on 5-1-1968 the accused came to my firm office at Khariar Road and contracted me to purchase Mohua from my firm office presenting himself as a big Mohua dealer. The accused is partner in the firm in the name and style 'Seth Mathura Das Kaluram Mundra' dealing with Mohua in Gondia in Maharastra, That on 5-1-1968 the accused came to my firm office at Khariar Road and contracted me to purchase Mohua from my firm office presenting himself as a big Mohua dealer. He wanted to purchase three wagons of Mohua worth of Rs. 38. 700.00 and some odd. I believed him. The accused said that he will send payment of entire amount within 3 months fro the date of delivery of goods. x x x In good faith as the accused is brother businessman and waited for fun payment but when he avoided to pay the same, I have filed this case. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case and summoned the Petitioner to stand his trial. After the accused appeared, the complainant examined his witnesses. Three witnesses were examined and cross-examined before charge. Thereafter the Magistrate heard the counsel on the question of framing of charge and ultimately framed a charge u/s 420 Indian Penal Code on 24-3-1972. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and then the case was adjourned to 11-4-1972 for cross-examination of the p.ws. after charge. 5. The Petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in revision making a reference to this Court recommending quashing of the charge. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application on the ground that there was no legal bar in launching a criminal prosecution simultaneously with institution of civil proceeding. It was contended before him which is also a fact, that shortly after filing of the complaint petition, the complainant filed M.S. No. 2/71 on 20.1.1971 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna for realisation of the balance amount of Rs. 18,258/- s with interest and costs. 6. The Petitioner has now filed this application for quashing the proceeding. 7. Ordinarily the High Court is reluctant to interfere with criminal proceeding at an interlocutory stage, but the Supreme Court has enumerated in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceeding can be exercised. Those cases are: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. The State of Punjab some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceeding can be exercised. Those cases are: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category, (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises, it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge, in dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and dearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation mayor may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction u/s 561-A the, High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the instant case is one which comes within the second category of the cases enumerated above by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. He further contends that even if the allegations made against the accused do constitute an offence u/s 420. Indian Penal Code as alleged there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly do not establish the charge. 9. He further contends that even if the allegations made against the accused do constitute an offence u/s 420. Indian Penal Code as alleged there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly do not establish the charge. 9. The charge framed runs as follows : That you on or about the 5th January, 1968 at Khariar Road cheated Ramniklal Dholkia a partner of M/s Ashok Kumar Rasik Lal & Company of Khariar Road by dishonestly inducing him to deliver 692 bags of Mohua flower at a rate of Rs. 55/- per bag (75 kgs.) to you which were the property of the said Ramniklal Dholkia, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420. Indian Penal Code. 10. In order to establish an offence u/s 420. Indian Penal Code the following ingredients have to be established: (a) The accused must deceive; (b) The deception must be by way of a false representation ; (c) That representation must be false to the knowledge of the accused; (d) The representation must be made not only to deceive but to induce the person deceived in delivering the property; and (e) The inducement must be made dishonestly i.e. with the intention of making unlawful gain to himself or cause unlawful loss to the person so induced. 11. Neither the complaint petition nor the initial deposition of the complainant makes out any offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code. No overt act is attributed to the accused in either of them which prima facie establishes making of any representation to the complainant which is false to the knowledge of the accused and which induced the complainant to deliver the goods. The complainant knew the accused from before as a dealer in Mohua Flower and his belief in him in good faith did not originate in anything that the accused did or said on 5-1-1968, but was based on his prior knowledge about the accused that he was a regular dealer in Mohua flower. If the accused represented himself as big Mohua dealer such a representation could not be false because the complainant himself says that is true. The admission that the accused paid a major part of the price, and defaulted only in regard to the balance of the price some time later is rather an indication of absence of any motive of deception at the commencement of the business dealing. The admission that the accused paid a major part of the price, and defaulted only in regard to the balance of the price some time later is rather an indication of absence of any motive of deception at the commencement of the business dealing. Similarly there is not a whisper in the complaint petition nor in the initial deposition a bout any overt act done by the accused on 5-1-1968 which constituted the deception and dishonest inducement. I am, therefore, satisfied on perusing the allegations in the complaint petition and initial deposition that the necessary ingredients of an offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code have not been made out. 12. Even if the evidence that has been adduced in this case is accepted fully it does not establish the charge as framed. P.W. 1 is the complainant. He has testified that he knew the accused since 1966 and has had business dealings in Mohua flower with his firm, since then. He was therefore negotiating a fresh business on 5-1-1968 as an old customer. He has had telephone talks with the accused in the years 1966 and 1967 in respect of dealings in Mohua flower. The transaction on 5-1-1968 was a bona fide business transaction, and even if the accused said that he was a proprietor of Mathura Das Kaluram Mundra firm or a managing partner of that firm when he is an ordinary partner thereof, it is not such a representation as constituted a deception and dishonest inducement. There is not a single line in his testimony that he was induced by such a representation to deliver the goods or that such inducement was a dishonest one. Thus one of the essential ingredients of the offence charged is wanting and the essence of criminality of the offence has not been made out in the evidence at all. Thus it is a case of an evidence and therefore falls within the 3rd category of cases enumerated by the Supreme Court. 13. Thus one of the essential ingredients of the offence charged is wanting and the essence of criminality of the offence has not been made out in the evidence at all. Thus it is a case of an evidence and therefore falls within the 3rd category of cases enumerated by the Supreme Court. 13. The delay of three years in instituting the complaint case and filing of a civil suit for realisation of the balance price shortly after instituting the criminal case, coupled with the fact that the accused tried to honour the contract and paid more than half of the price due, show beyond doubt that the accused had no criminal intent when he entered into the contract and that the complainant was also clear about it in his mind, but he merely resorted to the criminal Court on the offence of a speedy realisation. In fact, the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and there is no offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code involved. The present prosecution amounts to abuse process of the Court. To allow the further prolongation of the prosecution will not only amount to harassment of the accused, but to permitting further continua nee of that abuse process of the Court. 14. I would, therefore, allow this application, quash the charges framed by the S.D.M. Nawapara in complaint case No. ICC 2/71 as extracted above and also the prosecution against the accused. As a result of this quashing, the Petitioner is entitled to acquittal. Charge and prosecution, accordingly quashed.