JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code') praying to quash the charges framed against the Petitioner by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri. 2. It has been alleged that the Petitioner had presented his application for admission into the 5th year Class in English along with a letter bearing memo No. Ex-111- Trans-10095/82 dated 5-10-1982 from the Assistant Controller of Examinations of Utkal University to the Principal, S.C. S. College, Puri in which permission had been accorded to the Petitioner for his transfer from Ravenshaw College, Cuttack to the S.C. S. College, Puri and a Transfer Certificate bearing No. Nil dated 5-10-1982 issued by the Principal, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack in favour of the Petitioner stating that he was a student of Ravenshaw College, from 20-9-1982 to 5-10-1982. On the basis of the aforesaid documents permission was accorded to the Petitioner on 5-10-1982 and he was admitted to the 5th year Class in S.C. S. College, Puri on the sa me day. It was subsequently revealed that the Petitioner was not a student of Ravenshaw College, during the academic Session 1982-83 and no College Leaving Certificate or Transfer Certificate was issued in his favour by the authorities of Ravenshaw College. It has been further alleged that the aforesaid College Leaving Certificate and the Transfer Certificate were forged documents which were used by the Petitioner to obtain a permission from the University and on the basis of the said permission from Utkal University he got himself admitted in the 5th Year Class of the S.C. S. College, Puri After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 34/82 and the case was transferred to the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri for disposal. It has been urged in this case that there is no material whatsoever on record justifying the charges to be framed and according to the Petitioner it is a fit case where this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code should quash the charges and the proceeding. It has been urged in this case that there is no material whatsoever on record justifying the charges to be framed and according to the Petitioner it is a fit case where this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code should quash the charges and the proceeding. It has been strenuously urged by the Petitioner that he was a student of the S.C. S. College, Puri from where he passed his B. A. examination in the academic Year 1980-81 from Utkal University and applied to the same College for admission to the 5th Year Class in English. After receiving intimation from the Principal, he took admission in the College and he is not aware of the Certificates granted from Ravenshaw College, Cuttack said to have been forged and also the permission from Utkal University which is said to have been granted on the basis of the forged Certificates. The charges that have been framed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate. Puri quoted in the application before this Court, is reproduced below for immediate reference; That you on or about the 5th day of October. 1982 at Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, cheated the Principal, of the said College, by dishonestly inducing him to deliver a forged certificate to you and which was the property of the said Principal and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly, that you, on or about the same day date, time and place of occurrence, forged a certain document, to write application containing forged signature of the Principal, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, intending that it should be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that you on or about the same day, time and place of occurrence, fraudulently used as genuine a certain document to write an application containing forged signature of the Principal, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document: and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Fourthly, that you on or about the same day, time and place of occurrence, agreed to do the criminal conspiracy forged the transfer certificate purported to have been issued by the Principal, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance: And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge." The Petitioner has alleged that he was an ex-student and President of the College Union of S.C. S. College, Puri and the present Criminal case was instituted against him for the sole purpose of preventing him from contesting in the College Union Election in which move they became successful as his admission was cancelled. According to him, there is absolutely no material on record for continuance of the proceeding against him as the charges framed against him are without any basis whatsoever. 3. Section 482 of the Code is a statutory recognition of the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise; to secure the ends of justice. The only restriction in exercise of such power is not to override any express provision in the Code or express bar of law engrafted in any other provisions of the Code. The power to be exercised under that Section is in its nature extra-ordinary and ought to be used sparingly with a view to do real and substantial,justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available to be exercised to quash the charge framed against an accused, where the materials taken at their face value anti accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. It has been observed in the decision reported in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. AIR 1977 S.C.: " In the exercise of this wholesome power the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. AIR 1977 S.C.: " In the exercise of this wholesome power the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature." The aforesaid decision and many others were followed by this Court in the decision reported in Sri Harekrushna Mahtab and Anr. v. Republic of India dl another 52 (1981) C.L.T. 473, where this Court quashed the proceeding initiated against Shri Harekrushna Mahatab finding that the continuance of the prosecution would in the facts of that case be a harassment and would not achieve any salutary public purpose. In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Jajodia and Another Vs. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Bhubaneswar the learned Judge has taken the same view after taking note of several other cases. His Lordship has properly expressed that the order framing a charge is an important and sacroanct act and it should be framed after due and proper materials placed against the person before the Court, the settled position being that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available to be exercised to prevent an abuse of process of the Court or for the ends of justice. The actual exercise thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 4. The actual exercise thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 4. It has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the statements recorded u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code and other materials on record, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged for which reason the charges framed against the Petitioner should be quashed to save him from the consequent unnecessary harassment in the continuance of the proceeding. In that connection a decision reported in Manoharlal Arora and Ors. v. Atma Prakash Arora 1980 C.L.R. 141, has been relied upon in support of the proposition that mere suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof in a criminal prosecution. The aforesaid proposition cannot however be made applicable to the stage of charge. In the decision reported in Dinesh Kumar Jajodia and Anr. v. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.3 (supra) the learned Judge has correctly stated the law on the subject, relying on a decision reported in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh. It has been held in the aforesaid case that at the stage of charge the Court is not to enter into a meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials placed before it. The test which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or other wise of the accused, is not to be applied at the stage of deciding as to whether a charge is to be framed. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. If there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In this context I will proceed to examine the materials to find out if the framing of the charges against the accused can be said to be an abuse of process of the Court or the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. In this context I will proceed to examine the materials to find out if the framing of the charges against the accused can be said to be an abuse of process of the Court or the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. As has been held in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (supra) and several other cases that the evidence and materials on record are not to be meticulously judged nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. At this stage it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in detail or weigh in a sensitive balance whether the charges if proved would be incompatible to the innocence of the accused or not. In other words the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charges. It has been further laid in the aforesaid decision that at that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At that stage the only consideration is to decide prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. 5. Applying the Jaw as illustrated by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and consistently followed by this Court and various other High Courts I will proceed to examine whether the charges framed against the accused in this case are in accordance with law. 6. The first charge is u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Applying the Jaw as illustrated by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and consistently followed by this Court and various other High Courts I will proceed to examine whether the charges framed against the accused in this case are in accordance with law. 6. The first charge is u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. From the statements of the principal, Ravenshaw College and the Administrative Burser of the College recorded during investigation it shows that the Petitioner was never a student in the said College and as such the question of issuing the Transfer Certificate or the College Leaving Certificate did not arise. It is also there in those statements that the writings in the College Leaving Certificate are not the writings of the authorised assistant of the College nor it has been signed by any authorised officer of the College. The charge being that the Petitioner has cheated the principal of Ravenshaw College by dishonestly inducing him to deliver a forged certificate to him, the same is not at all supported by the aforesaid statements. Even if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the Petitioner so far as this charge is concerned is fully accepted, it would not show that the Petitioner has committed any offence u/s 420. I.P.C. . There being no prospect of conviction under this charge, the same is bound to be quashed. 7. The 2nd charge is u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of forgery with the intention of using the forged document for the purpose of cheating. The two essential elements to constitute an offence u/s 468, I.P.C. are: (i) that the accused must have committed the forgery within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) that he must have done so with the intention of committing cheating. Nothing has been brought to my notice from which there can be an inference or even a strong suspicion that it is the Petitioner who had forged the documents in question for which the charge u/s 468, I.P.C. is not sustainable. 8. The third charge is one u/s 471 of the Indian Penal Code under which using a forged document as genuine is punishable. 8. The third charge is one u/s 471 of the Indian Penal Code under which using a forged document as genuine is punishable. The essential ingredients of this section are: (i) know ledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using the document that the document is a forged one; (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine. From the statements recorded during investigation it cannot be said that there is no ground for .presuming that the accused has committed an offence under the said section. As has been illustrated by their Lordships in the decision reported in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh5 (supra) if the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial then on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making a charge, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the charge is to be framed. 9. Similar is the position so far as the 4th charge u/s 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Section 120-B defines criminal conspiracy and this section provides the punishment thereto. From the materials brought on record at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that there is no prospect for a conviction at all. 10. In the result, I would hold that there is no materials on record for the charges framed under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the same are to be quashed. The trial would, therefore, proceed for the charges under Sections 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed in part.