JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. is preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 384 of 1977 pending against him. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under section 406 I.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any criminal offence. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the order taking the cognizance against the petitioner could be challenged in a revision. The petitioner did not avail of the remedy and, therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. I do not propose to notice the arguments on the question of maintainability of the petition because by my decision in criminal Misc. application No. 189/1979 (Sadhu Maharaj Sundar Dasji & ors v. Babulal & ors) I have held that barring a few exceptions the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be exercised if a specific remedy has been provided under the Criminal Procedure Code for the redress of the grievance. However, in my opinion it is a fit case where an exception should apply in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) it was held that if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute a criminal offence the inherent powers of the Court should be exercised to quash the proceedings. That apart the petition has not been filed against the order taking the cognizance. It is E against the continuation of the proceedings in the criminal case. In such circumstances it was thus observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, WB v. Mohan Singh & ors. (BIR 1975 SC 1002) : "Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings in lower) court - Proceedings long drawn out. In such circumstances it was thus observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, WB v. Mohan Singh & ors. (BIR 1975 SC 1002) : "Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings in lower) court - Proceedings long drawn out. No prima facie case made out against accused - Proceedings may be quashed by High Court to prevent a base of pro-1 cess of court and to secure ends of justice - Fact that a similar application for quashing the proceedings on a former occasion was rejected by the High Court on the ground that questions of fact which were for the Court of fact to decide, is no bar to the quashing of the proceeding will not amount to revision or review of the High Court's earlier order - Order under Section 561 A should be passed in view of the circumstances existing at the time when the order is passed." I am, therefore of the opinion that though the petitioner did nor file the revision challenging the taking of the cognizance against him yet he can challenge the continuation of the proceedings. 4. The allegations in the complaint filed against the petitioner in substance are that the non-petitioners agreed to sell a truck to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. [ 41,333/-. Rs. 21,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the non-petitioner and the truck was handed over by the former. Rs. 20,000/- was remained to be paid. The petitioner agreed to return the truck in case the balance amount of the price of the truck was not paid to the non-petitioner. The petitioner and the co-accused who purchased truck did not return the truck also they were not prepared to pay the balance of the purchase. On these allegations cognizance under section 406 I. P. C. was taken against petitioner and the co-accused. failed to comprehend how these allegations constitute an offence under section 406 IPC. The title in the truck had already passed to the petitioner and the co-accused and, therefore, it could not be said that the truck remained in their possession in trust. They became the owners of the truck. Of course they might be committing a breach of contract inasmuch they are refusing to pay Rs. 20,000/- the balance of purchase price to the non-petitioners. They became the owners of the truck. Of course they might be committing a breach of contract inasmuch they are refusing to pay Rs. 20,000/- the balance of purchase price to the non-petitioners. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the allegations made in the complaint are utterly insufficient to make out a prima facie case against petitioner and the co-accused under section, 406 IPC.In the result the petition is accepted and the proceedings in criminal case No. 394/77 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner are hereby quashed. / sApplication allowed-Proceeding quashed. *******