This petition is for quashing the criminal proceeding registered as Case No. C. R. 559 of 1982 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur. 2. The opposite party herein filed a complaint on 25. 8. 82 before the learned Court against the accused-petitioner and in the said complaint petition it was inter alia, stated that complainant purchased a truck by taking a loan from the Allahabad Bank and at that time the complainant was the Manager of the Bank, Tezpur Branch. It has further been alleged that taking advantage of the loan the accused obtained the signature of the complainant in four blank sheets of paper and there was a dispute between the accused and the firm of the complainant. There was apprehension in the mind of the complainant that accused could harass to the complainant and the firm by preparing documents of the said blank papers. It has also been alleged that accused also took signatures in blank papers of witness No. 1, 4 and 5. In the initial deposition the com­plainant stated, inter alia, that she purchased the vehicle as stated and on 9.4. 82 the accused went to her place and on the plea of granting loan, obtained signature in blank papers and in some documents. In the deposition names of 4 witnesses for the complainant were also mentioned. 3. Against the said complaint petition this Court was approached by the accused and by judgment and order dated 25. 3. 83 passed in Criminal Revision No. 259 of 1982, this Court refused to quash the proceeding as prayed for, but directed that accused may be represented through a learned counsel during trial which was duly granted by the learned trial Court. 4. This is the second time the present petition has been filed for quashing the above criminal proceeding and in paragraph 8 of the present petition it has been stated that after the above judgment of this Court the complainant took several dates to produce the witnesses, but in spite of lapse of about 8 months witnesses could not be produced. It has also been alleged that the complainant is interested in lingering the matter in order to cause harassment to the accused-petitioner. 5. I have heard Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. P. Bora, learned counsel for the opposite party. 6. Mr. It has also been alleged that the complainant is interested in lingering the matter in order to cause harassment to the accused-petitioner. 5. I have heard Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. P. Bora, learned counsel for the opposite party. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the complaint petition read with the initial statement of the complainant do not make out a prima facie case and as such the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. According to Mr. Sharma even if it is accepted that the accused-petitioner took signature on blank papers it would not amount to an offence and in this connection learned counsel has drawn my attention to Trilok Singh vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 . It was held by their Lordships that obtaining signature of a person on blank sheet of paper by itself is not an offence of forgery or the like. It becomes an offence when the paper is fabricated into a document of the kind which attracts the relevant provisions of the Penal Code making it an offence or when such document is used as a genuine document. 6. Mr. Sharma has further drawn my attention to a recent decision of the Apex court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angee, AIR 1988 SC 709 , wherein it was held that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It was further held that it is for the Court to 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 to be on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. 8. Mr. This is to be on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. 8. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the opposite party has urged that as this Court in the earlier criminal revision considered both the complaint petition and the initial statement and refused to quash the proceeding, the present petition is not maintainable or at least this Court may not review its earlier decision. In this connection Mr. Bora has drawn my attention to para 6 of the earlier judgment which is available in the record of the learned trial Court wherein it was held by this Court that High Court could not launch on a detail and meticulous examination of the case on merit. 9. As this matter has already been considered by this Court I need not go into this aspect of the matter as rightly submitted by Mr. Bora. The only question is whether the second revision is main­tainable and if so whether the present proceeding is liable to be quashed. 10. In this connection Mr. Sharma, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh & others, (1975) 3 SCC 706 . In that case also a petition for quashing the proceeding was dismissed and a second petition was again moved after sometime. The question that was posed before the Apex Court whether on the strength of the second petition High Court can quash the proceeding by invoking inherent power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case the Apex Court took note of the fact that after the earlier petition for quashing the proceeding was rejected the Criminal case dragged on for a period of one and half years without any progress at all and accordingly the second petition was- filed which was allowed by the High Court. It was held that the inherent power of the High Court enable it to make such orders as it deems to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. It was held that the inherent power of the High Court enable it to make such orders as it deems to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Accepting the views taken by the High Court the Apex Court held that the High Court was entitled to entertain the subsequent application and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuation of the proceeding against the respondent constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. This question was answered in the affirmative by the Apex Court as the case was dragged on for more than a year without any progress. 11. I have perused the order sheet of the original case record and I find that after the first revision case was disposed of by this Court, the learned trial Court fixed dates for recording of evidence for complainant and the said dates were 23. 6. 83, 12. 8. 83 and 28. 9. 83. On the above dates though the accused was present through counsel, the complainant prayed for time to produce witnesses. Mr. Bora has drawn my attention to the orders passed on 18. 11. 83, 20.12.83 and 21.1.84 and has urged that on these dates the accused was not present. In otherwords, according to Mr. Bora as the accused was not present in the above dates he cannot now say that the complainant was at fault. According to Mr. Bora as the learned trial Court granted time in spite of absence of the complainant. this Court may not now interfere with this orders as the orders were passed in considering the prayer of the complainant. 12. It may be stated that accused was allowed to appear through counsel. Absence of the accused on 18. 11.83 and subsequent dates means that his counsel did not take steps for which, in my opinion, he cannot be penalised. On earlier occasions also the complainant did not take steps for production of witnesses. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal (Supra) I hold that the present petition which is a second revision is maintainable on new facts after the orders were passed by this Court. On earlier occasions also the complainant did not take steps for production of witnesses. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal (Supra) I hold that the present petition which is a second revision is maintainable on new facts after the orders were passed by this Court. On perusal of the orders, of the learned trial Court I am fully satisfied that the complainant was not at all serious in proceeding with the criminal trial. That apart, this matter is pending since 1982 and no useful purpose would be served by allowing this proceeding to continue. 13. For what has been stated above, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly it is allowed by quashing the proceeding being Case No. C. R. 559 of 1^82 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur. The rule is made absolute. No costs.