A complaint was filed against the three petitioners under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the materials on record, the learned trial Court, however, framed charge only under section 420 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and discharged petitioner No. 3. None the-less all the three accused persons have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding. It may be stated that against the order of disch­arge of petitioner No. 3, a revision has been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh as stated by Shri Son, which is said to be pending. 2. As the approach to this Court is under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, it may be stated at the outset that the inherent power has to be invoked where the Court is satisfied that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court or where it thinks that interest of justice demands that the proceedings be quashed. This power is invoked when, on the facts alleged, the Court is satisfied that no case is made out. Let it, therefore, be seen if a prima facie case under section 420 has been made out or not against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The broad fact which has given rise to this prosecution is that according to the complai­nant the three petitioners approached him for advancing a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as loan. This was on 15.1.81. Though he was hesitant and was not inclined to advance this huge amount, he was prevailed upon to do so by saying that Truck No. ASE 3081 which really belongs to the three petitioners but is regis­tered in the name of petitioner No. 3, would be given as a security. The complainant then advanced the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. An approach was again made on 18.3.81, and this time to advance a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The initial hesitation of the complainant was over-come, this time by saying that the truck would stand sold to him against the total consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Petitioner No. 2 gave a receipt for the amount and also drafted a letter to effect transfer of the truck in the name of the com­plainant. The transfer was, however, refused by the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, as the truck was registered in the name of petitioner No. 3 alone. 70,000/-. Petitioner No. 2 gave a receipt for the amount and also drafted a letter to effect transfer of the truck in the name of the com­plainant. The transfer was, however, refused by the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, as the truck was registered in the name of petitioner No. 3 alone. The further allegation is that on 25.3.81, the accused persons took away the truck from the control of the complainant. On the matter being taken up with the accused-persons, they said that they would either deliver the truck or refund a sum of Rs. 70,000/-, which was not done. In support of its case, the complainant examined some witne­sses and on going through the same and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court framed charges as stated above and discharged petitioner No. 3. 3. Shri Sen submits that the case is of purely civil nature and if the accused persons had failed to refund the money, the complainant is well within his rights to approach the Civil Court either for return of the money or for enforcing the con­tract to sell the truck. A strong reliance is sought to be placed by Shri Sen on Hari Prasad Chamaria vs. Bishun Kumar Surekha, (1973) 2 SCC 823 . On the facts of that case, the Court came to the conclusion that there was mere breach of contract which could not give rise to a criminal prosecution. The observations in paragraph 4 are pertinent which state that nothing was found in- the complaint to disclose that the respondents of that case had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant had parted with the sum of Rs. 35,000/-. There was also nothing to indicate in that case that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him nor was that a case where representation had been made by the respondents to the appellant at or before the time be had paid the money to them, which representation the respondents knew to be false. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, it is the clear case of the complainant that he had parted with the money, and which is as high as Rs. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, it is the clear case of the complainant that he had parted with the money, and which is as high as Rs. 70,000/- on the representation of the accused persons that the truck would remain as security with the complainant so far as the first transaction is concerned and after the second was gone into even sale was promised and really a document has been ascribed by petitioner No. 2. When it is remembered that the second alleged loan was on 18.3.81 and the vehicle had been taken away on 25.3.81, dece­ption caused in the mind of the complainant would become apparent, so would be the evil intention of the accused persons. I am, therefore, prim a facie satisfied that the accused persons had in fact induced the complainant to part with the money on the false representation that the truck would either remain as security for the money or would be sold to him. The prose­cution cannot, therefore, be regarded as a weapon of harass­ment or any abuse of the process of the Court. The decision in the State of Karnataka vs. Mainstay, (1977) 2 SCC 699 , does not, therefore, assist the petitioners. 4. In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is rejected and the petition is dismissed.