M. WAHAJUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant who is one of the co-accused in Criminal case No. 301 of 1980, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, Agra, and has been summoned along with other co-accused persons by that court under Section 407. Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code has come forward with a prayer that the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case against him and the same as well as the criminal proceedings against him may be quashed. ( 2 ) I have gone through the complaint as well as the statement under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code. On a perusal of the same I find that they disclose an entrustment of the goods to other co-accused persons and not to the applicant. The recitals are that the goods were sent through truck with a builty for the applicant and the applicant did not houour the Hundi and the goods were also not received back by the applicant. It is no where stated that actually the carrier delivered the goods to the applicant at all. In absence of any such allegation there could he no entrustment to the applicant, nor any question of misappropriation by the applicant, would arise. In fact, no case prime facie is disclosed against the application ( 3 ) IT was next urged by the respondents counsel that in any case on the authority of the case of Agra Electricity Co. v. State powers under Section 561-A. Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked. That may have been the, view earlier, but thereafter the. view is changed and there are authorities of the Supreme Court that such Powers can be invoked and exercised. The first leading case on the point is that of R-P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab. In that case the guide lines for the exercise of the inherent powers at interlocutory - stage were laid down. The observations made on page 869 regarding the category of such cases is important. It has been observed that cases may arise where first information report or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted ill its entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The observations made on page 869 regarding the category of such cases is important. It has been observed that cases may arise where first information report or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted ill its entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. Some other categories of cases were mentioned and it was observed that as the appreciation of evidence is not involved the powers under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure - Code (old) corresponding to 5. 482 Criminal Procedure Code (new) can be exercised. A similar view was taken in the case of M adho Limaye v. State of Maharashtra. Even recently the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan took the same view. In fact, in that case the High Court quashed proceedings against two persons, the Supreme Court upheld the order regarding one while modified the order concerning the other and observed the very principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier cases. ( 4 ) IT is urged that in any case Khacheru v. State of U. P. would stand as a bar quashing the proceedings. In that case actually the charge was framed, meaning thereby that some prima facie case did exist.- Some persons were discharged by the subordinate court, while charge was framed against some others and they too were then discharged by the Sessions Judge and that order was upheld by the High Court; but the Supreme Court disapproved of it and interfered observing that the Magistrate should be left to deal with the matter. It is the duty of the Court to reconcile the various proposition of law laid down in various pronouncements. In fact, the case of R. P. Kapoor was in no way dissented that case it was observed-that where the matter of appreciation of evidence is not involved and the complaint itself does not disclose a case it can be quashed. In the case of Khacheru matter of appreciation of evidence was involved and for that the observation is that the Magistrate be left to exercise these powers. So, the two rulings are authorities on two different aspects as such. ( 5 ) I find that as the complaint does not disclose any case against the applicant Kali Charan Gupta of any entrustment etc. So, the two rulings are authorities on two different aspects as such. ( 5 ) I find that as the complaint does not disclose any case against the applicant Kali Charan Gupta of any entrustment etc. the Criminal proceedings against him incase No. 301 of 1980 pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Firorzabad district Agra, is quashed and the orders smmoning him is also quashed. But this is confined - to Kali Charan Gupta alone. ( 6 ) THE application is, thus, allowed and the proceedings against Kali Charan Gupta in the aforesaid case is quashed. The stay order dated 1. 10. 1981 is vacated and the case may proceed against others. Application allowed.