S. I. JAFRI, J. This application has been filed by Someshwari Prasad under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that proceedings in criminal case No. (R. C. R. 55/85) State v. Mohd. Rais &anr. , under Section 120- B/420/467/468/471, Cr. P. C. pending in the Court of Special Magistrate (C. B. I.), Lucknow be quashed. 2. According to prosecution a self-employment scheme was floated by the Govern ment specifying the categories of persons to be benefited under educated self employment through Banks. The person could be granted loans up to Rs. 25,000/- but the basic requirement was that the borrower should be matriculate and should be within 18 to 35 years of age. Consequently in order to be benefited from the aforesaid scheme, the applicant Someshwari Prasad and co-accused Mohd. Rais applied for a loan for Rs. 25,000/- each to Bank of India through the District Industries Centre, Allahabad in the month of March, 1985. The applicant Someshwari Prasad applied for loan to run a cut-pices cloth shop. The applicant while using fake quotations and vouchers in the name of M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya purported to be situated at Allenganj, Allahabad obtained the pay order number 785194, dated 26-4-1985 for Rs. 22,000/- against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 25,000/- from that Bank. He was also given Rs. 2,850 on April 26, 1985 against the sanctioned loan which was deposited in the Savings Bank Account No. 8531 opened on March 28,1985 in the same Bank. Likewise Mohd. Rais co-accused also applied for loan by filing fake quotations in the name of M/s Kohinoor Vastralays, Allenganij, Allahabad for opeining a cut piece business shop. Mohd. Rais also secured Rs. 25,000/- from Bank of India in two instalments. The case of the prosecution further is that both the accused had conspired together to obtain Rs. 25000/- each by opening the Account No. 1911 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad and deposited the above pay order into the said account and the proceeds thereof were withdrawn by them through cheques. Both Mohd. Rais and the applicant gained pecuniary advantage by getting two loans and thus caused pecuniary loss to the Bank and cheated the Bank as above. 3. Both Mohd. Rais and the applicant gained pecuniary advantage by getting two loans and thus caused pecuniary loss to the Bank and cheated the Bank as above. 3. I have heard Sri V C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant Someshwari Prasad, who has submitted that in this case, the offence of cheating and forgery is not at all made out as the mens rea is wanting in this case in so far as the accused are concerned. It was further submitted by him that no doubt both Someshwari Prasad and Mohd. Rais gained pecuniary advantage by using the vouchers purported to have been issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya but they were duty bound to pay off the loans to the Bank by agreement with a discount of 25%. Under the circumstances, the liability of the accused in this case is only of a civil nature and in the absence of criminal intent, no offence of forgery or cheating is made out against the accused. To constitute an offence of cheating, a duty is cast on the prosecution to establish that the offender had the intention of cheating. The main ingredient of the offence of cheating is that there should be deception of a person so as to fraudulently or dishonestly induce that person to deliver any property to any person and thus in order to cheat a person, there must be dishonest and fraudulent intention. The word dishonestly incorporated in Section 420, I. P. C. implies a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or a wrongful loss and under the circumstances, the mens rea has to be established by the prosecution which is lacking in this case. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant, further submitted that accused had no knowledge that the vouchers issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya, Allenganj, Allahabad, were forged, else, in this case, it cannot be inferred on the basis of the prosecution allegations that the accused had intended to commit forgery. I have given my utmost consideration to this aspect of the matter and I am satisfied that the intention to commit forgery of the vouchers issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya cannot be safely attributed to the accused. 5. I have given my utmost consideration to this aspect of the matter and I am satisfied that the intention to commit forgery of the vouchers issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya cannot be safely attributed to the accused. 5. The learned Counsel also submitted that the main ingredient of Section 471, I. P. C. is that the accused had knowledge or had reason to believe that the documents were forged and a duty is also cast upon the prosecution to show that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine document which he know or had reason to believe to be forged. It was urged that thus the main ingredient of Section 471, I. P. C. cannot be said to have been establishedprima facie by the prosecution against the accused in this case. I have considered this aspect of the mater very carefully and I am satisfied that the prosecution allegations do not prima facie show that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the vouchers issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya by submitting them in the Bank having reason to believe that the vouchers filed by them, were forged documents. The possibility that the accused were under bona fide belief that the said vouchers were genuine cannot be ruled out. 6. The learned Counsel also submitted that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that the accused were a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence. Taking into account the ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy as mentioned in Sections 120-A and 120-B, I. P. C. the essential ingredients of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement to commit the offence. In the present case, the agreement to commit criminal conspiracy is wanting. I hold that in this case the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are not shown to have been established prima facie on the prosecution allegation itself against the accused. 7. It was further submitted that the conduct of the accused was bonafide. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant Someshwari Prasad had paid Rs. I hold that in this case the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are not shown to have been established prima facie on the prosecution allegation itself against the accused. 7. It was further submitted that the conduct of the accused was bonafide. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant Someshwari Prasad had paid Rs. 6,000/- between the years 1985 and 1986 in three instalments to the Bank which is not denied by Sri M. P. Tandon, the learned Counsel for the C. B. I. The applicant has further deposited the entire amount with interest in the Bank i. e. Rs. 42,897. 83 and had obtained a no Dues Certificate (Annexure-A) to the supplementary affidavit from the Bank of India which is also mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit and it is also not denied by the learned Counsel for the C. B. 1. I am thus satisfied that the conduct of the accused hasbeen bona fide under the circumstances discussed above. The applicant Someshwari Prasad has not committed prima facie any offence under Section 120-B/420/467/468/471, I. P. C. and thus his prosecution under the aforesaid sections deserves to be quashed. 8. A perusal of paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ashok Babu, Inspector of Police, C. B. I. , Lucknow discloses that co-accused Mohd. Rais had paid the entire amount of loan due on him to the bank during the pendency of the trial. In these circumstances, the prosecution of Mohd. Rais under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471, I. P. C. also deserves to be quashed as in his case also, there is absence of any criminal intent on his part and his conduct also has been bonafide. Thus no wrongful loss has accrued to the Bank by any acts of the accused. 9. I am thus full satisfied that there has been no intention to cheat the Bank on the part of both the accused and there has been no wrongful loss to the Bank as the accused were duty bound to pay back the loan to the Bank by virtue of the agreement arrived at between the Bank and the accused. The liability hinges on the accused only of a civil nature and thus the chances of conviction of the accused person in this case are quite bleak and too remote. 10. The liability hinges on the accused only of a civil nature and thus the chances of conviction of the accused person in this case are quite bleak and too remote. 10. The special features of the case are that the two unemployed youth, viz. the accused persons wanted to get themselves settled in life and cued by this anxiety, they applied for the loan, obtained the same by executing an agreement to repay the loan to the Bank and have also repaid the entire amount of loan I thus consider it a fit case where the prosecution for alleged offences is not at all desirable and it will not be in the interest of justice to permit their prosecution to continue. I am fortified by in this view by a decision of Hon. Supreme Court reported in Madhavrao v. Sambhajirao, AIR 1988 SC 709 where in it has been held that the Court should also take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case, to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the forum of the Court cannot be made use of for any oblique purposes and where in the opinion of the Court the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 11. In the result, the application filed by Someshwari Prasad under Section 482, Cr. PC. is allowed and his prosecution under Section 120-B/420/467/468/471, I. P. C. pending in the Court of Special Magistrate, C. B. I. , Lucknow in Criminal Case (B. C. 55/85) vide Crime No. 250 of 1987, State v. Mohd. Rais and another are quashed. It is made clear that though there is no application on behalf of Modhd. Rais for quashing the proceedings pending against him, but in view of the prosecution of Someshwari Prasad applicant having been quashed by this Court, I deem it just and proper to quash the proceedings pending against Mohd. Rais also in Criminal Case (B. C. 55/1985) vide Crime No. 250/87, State v. Mohd. Rais & Anr. Rais for quashing the proceedings pending against him, but in view of the prosecution of Someshwari Prasad applicant having been quashed by this Court, I deem it just and proper to quash the proceedings pending against Mohd. Rais also in Criminal Case (B. C. 55/1985) vide Crime No. 250/87, State v. Mohd. Rais & Anr. pending in the Court of Special Magistrate, C. B. I. , Lucknow. Appeal allowed. .