JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The accused in Complaint Case no. 138 of 1981 is the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 14.12. 1981 where under the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, is being impugned 'in the present revision. 2. The complainant is an advocate of Bhubaneswar Bar and filed a complaint petition on 6 11,1981 alleging that the accused with whom a refrigerator belonging t6 the complainant had been delivered for repair did not part with the refrigerator by illegally demanding a sum of Rs. 350/-as Cost of repair. According to the complaint petition, even though the Head Office of the Company directed delivery of the refrigerator without any charge for repair, but the accused illegally demanded the money and retained the refrigerator as the complainant did not part with the repair charges. It was further alleged that the accused was using the refrigerator for himself ' though it was entrusted to him only for repairs. The Magistrate took the Initial statement of the complainant and then directed an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the inquiry, the complainant was examined and his driver was also examined. On consideration of these materials, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code and directed issuance of summons. Thereafter the complainant filed an application for issue of a search warrant u/s 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the refrigerator in question and the learned Magistrate allowed the same, but as the correct address of the accused had not been given the warrant had not been executed. 3. Mr. Swamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that at the allegations made in the complaint petition together with the evidence given in 202 cr. P.C. inquiry do not constitute the offence either u/s 406 or u/s 420, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, the order of cognizance must be quashed by this Court The power of the High Court to interfere with an order taking cognizance has been discussed in several decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court (see. State of Kerala Vs. A. Pareed Pillai and Another, Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, and Prafulla Mohanty Vs. Ashok Kumar Das. State of Kerala Vs. A. Pareed Pillai and Another, Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, and Prafulla Mohanty Vs. Ashok Kumar Das. It is no doubt true that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only prima facie to be satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Once the Magistrate exercises his discretion, it is ordinarily not open for the, High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to finding out whether or not the allegation in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. But at the same time, it is equally well-settled that where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused, then the High Court would be justified to quash the proceeding as otherwise to allow continuance of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of Court ( See Prafulla Mohanty Vs. Ashok Kumar Das. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, if the allegations in the complaint petition as well as the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded in the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are examined, in my view, even on their face value, no offence either u/s 406 or u/s 420 Indian Penal Code can be said to have been established prima faoie- The entire allegation "appears to be that the complainant had given the refrigerator for repair and the accused demanded some charges for the repair,. As the complainant did not pay the same, the accused did not handover the refrigerator. By no stretch of imagination the Ingredients of either Section 466 or Section 420 Indian Penal Code can be said to have been satisfied on the aforesacf affegatfons. Consequently, allowing initiation and continuation of the criminal proceed-mgin the facts and circumstances of the present case most be held to be an abuse of process of Court. By no stretch of imagination the Ingredients of either Section 466 or Section 420 Indian Penal Code can be said to have been satisfied on the aforesacf affegatfons. Consequently, allowing initiation and continuation of the criminal proceed-mgin the facts and circumstances of the present case most be held to be an abuse of process of Court. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the magistrate taking cognizance of the offences and quash the criminal proceeding. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed