JUDGMENT 1. - This original miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jaipur District Jaipur framing charge against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and also against the order of the Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision holding that the order was of interim nature. First of all this court made a reference to larger Bench to answer the question whether an order framing charge against the accused petitioner is an interlocutory order and this has been answered in the affirmative. The order framing charge therefore could not have been challenged in Revision and the only remedy available to the accused is under section 482 Cr.P.C. and this petition has to be decided. 2. The facts on the basis of which the case against the petitioner has been made out are that in the year 1978 he opened a current account in the name of the firm M/s V.P. Dal and Besan Mills at the Mandbana Branch of Central Bank of India. It is alleged that he obtained over a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, on the basis of bogus storage certificates and hypothecation statements in the name of Shah Agro Industries. In this manner he is said to have cheated the Bank. Further the prosecution case is that firm of Shah Agro Industries was not having any licence to deal in pulses and was not having stock of the gram or gram dal but falsely declared goods to be in its possession. In other words it pledged goods which did not exist. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partner in different firms and the goods he pledged with the Bank were of a firm in which he was a partner and had control over it and the hypothecation was not bogus. The loan taken from the Bank has also been repaid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the guilty person in the case should have been the Bank Manager who had exceeded his powers in showing favour to the firm of the petitioner and the petitioner has not in any manner cheated anybody. Whatever declaration he gave was that he had interest in the good^ which had been pledged and this declaration was not false. Whatever declaration he gave was that he had interest in the good^ which had been pledged and this declaration was not false. According to the petitioner he has remained within the limits and there was no motive on his part to cheat and go away with the money or goods. 4. The learned counsel for the CBI has contended that at the stage of framing of charge what is to be seen is whether a case is made out from the facts disclosed in the FIR and evidence is not to be looked into at this stage. According to him when it had not been disclosed by the petitioner that the goods pledged by him were of Shah Agro Industries (hen this clarification should not be looked into at this stage. It is contended that the court should not engage on an enquiry at the stage of framing of charge because framing of charge depends upon making of a prima facie case only. Referring to the scope of section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been contended that this power can be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders, but only when the conditions mentioned in section 482 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. In Bhanwar Lal v. Madan Lal, 1977 RLW 174 . it was held that the exercise of such powers is not limited or controlled by the bar created by section 397 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the two powers are separate and distinct and operate in their respective field. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on A.K. Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1560 . wherein it has been held that tor the purpose of holding the accused guilty under section 420 IPC evidence, adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt the mens rea on his part. 6. In Sharad Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 . it was held that where the allegations in the complaint or charge sheet did not constitute any offence the High Court should quash the charge in exercise of its inherent powers. 7. From the facts as alleged by the prosecution it is to be seen whether any intention to cheat can be made out on the part of the petitioner. If the allegations cannot be said to constitute any offence then this court in the exercise of its inherent powers should quash the proceedings. 7. From the facts as alleged by the prosecution it is to be seen whether any intention to cheat can be made out on the part of the petitioner. If the allegations cannot be said to constitute any offence then this court in the exercise of its inherent powers should quash the proceedings. If the limit of credit facility which the petitioner was allowed was exceeded then the person extending such facility can be said to have some oblique motive. The intention of the petitioner to exceed the limit and thereby cheat the Bank can be made out only if it can be said that he did not pledge goods as was required or that he pledged goods which were not in existence, or the statements and certificates secured by him go to show that the stock is in the name of Shah Agro Industries over which the petitioner had no control. If he pledged goods of another firm and took credit in the name of V.P. Dal and Besan Mills and this by itself would not suggest that the intention was to obtain illegal benefit. The loan was given to the petitioner during the year 1978 and the account of the Bank was also cleared by the petitioner long ago, this has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the CBI. In this case if any irregularity can be said to have been committed then it has been committed by the Branch Manager, who advanced loan to firm, which was not in business within the jurisdiction of the Bank. If the pledge of go the was wrongly accepted when the goods were shown to be in the name of Shah Agro Industries, this irregularity was done by the Manager of the Bank in not scrutinising the pledge of goods properly. This Manager has neither been made an accused nor a witness In such circumstances the prosecution of the petitioner for some irregularity which cannot be said to amount to commission of offence will not be proper in the interest of justice and the framing of the charge against the accused petitioner deserves to be quashed. 8. This petition is accepted and the charge framed against the petitioner under section 420 IPC is quashed and he is discharged.Petition accepted. *******