Judgment S. K. Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Petitioner No.2 is at present holding the post of Manager under Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited. Petitioner No.1 has moved this court against the order taking cognizance dated 5.6.92 under Secs.406, 420, read with Sec.120 of the Indian Penal Code. The Corporation is the successor of Burmah Shell Refinery Ltd. and is government Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.2 is posted as Manager at budge Budge Haldia in the district of mednapur, West Bengal. Opposite party no.2, the Executive Engineer. R. E. O. Works Division, Khunti made report to the Officer incharge Khunti police station alleging, inter alia, that a sum of Rs.3,45,390a was paid to the Corporation, jamshedpur directing the opposite party no.2 to receive the materials from the deputy Manager, Bitumen (Distribution) of the aforesaid Corporation at haldia. After receiving the said delivery order he authorised Sri Giridhar Mandal, junior Engineer. R. E. O. , Khunti who was in charge of the Govt. godown and materials to receive the said bitumen and carry the same from Haldia to Khunti departmentally. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was also advanced to said Mandal as carriage charge. Opposite party no.2 intimated the Deputy Manager of the Corporation and handed over the original D. O. letter to Mandal In October, 1990 for the first time it was known that Sri Mandal instead of receiving the materials himself and bring the same under his supervision, sub-authorised one Sri Atul Chandra paul of M. /s Paul Roadline, Haldia to receive the said bitumen directly from the said Deputy Manager of the Corporation at Haldia. It is further alleged that out of total amount only 10.016 MT of bitumen reached in R. E. O. godown at Khunti whereas the entire quantity of bitumen was received by said Sri Paul on several dates in between 17.5.90 to 9.6.90 (wrongly typed as 9.5.90) without even intimation to the office and in corroboration of said Sri Mandal, Junior engineer. The allegation against the deputy Manager (bitumen) was that though there was clear direction to deliver the goods to Sri Mandal the junior Engineer, the delivery was made to Sri Paul by him malafidely. It is said that in spite of several letters and reminders the balance of bitumen has not yet been received by the department. The allegation against the deputy Manager (bitumen) was that though there was clear direction to deliver the goods to Sri Mandal the junior Engineer, the delivery was made to Sri Paul by him malafidely. It is said that in spite of several letters and reminders the balance of bitumen has not yet been received by the department. Allegation against Mandal is that he did not obey the order to proceed to haldia for procurement of balance of bitumen and as such, he was charged. with neglecting his duties, in subordination and misappropriation of Govt. materials with the above said persons. 2. After alleging the aforesaid facts, the opposite party No.2 concluded that petitioner No.2 in connivance with Sri mandal and Paul put the Govt. of Bihar in financial loss with intention to make illegal gain by practising fraud, cheating and misappropriating the Govt. funds. 3. On receiving such information khunti case No.115/90 dated 21.12.90 under the aforesaid was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and subsequently cognizance of the offence was taken. Another revealing feature of the case is that one of the accused, namely, giridhar Mandal, before taking cognizance of the offence, filed a petition before the court below for his discharge mainly on the ground that no cognizance could be taken against him without proper sanction order from the state Government. The Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, by his order dated 26.5.92 while refusing the prayer for discharge, observed that cognizance shall only be taken against Sri mandal after procurement of sanction order from the proper authority. However, on 5.6.92 the said court while taking cognizance of the case in relation to other two accused, directed that whenever sanction is obtained, cognizance shall be taken against said girdhar Mandal by the said trial court. 4. Mr P. K. Sinha learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has firstly contended that the learned court below has completely erred in law in taking cognizance of the offence as against the petitioner in-as-much as from a bare perusal of the allegation made in the F. J. R. no case is made out against the petitioner. He submits that in the F. I. R. itself shows that the Junior Engineer, Sri Mandal was the man responsible for such misappropriation as alleged and that too in connivance with transporters. He submits that in the F. I. R. itself shows that the Junior Engineer, Sri Mandal was the man responsible for such misappropriation as alleged and that too in connivance with transporters. It is contended that the Corporation was not under any obligation to reach the bitumen in the FIR godown at Khunti which fact as apparent from the F. l. R. itself. After rectifying the delivery order opposite party No.2. authorised the junior Engineer to receive the goods from the Corporation at Haldia for which he was also given transportation charges. Whether the Junior Engineer was at fault in sub-authorising the transport Corporation or not is not the concern of the Corporation. The Corporation, Mr. Sinha submits, In due compliance of the order, delivered required bitumen to Paul Transporter and after this the Corporations liability ceases. The second submission of Mr. Sinha is that in view of Sec.17 of the burma Shell (Acquisition) Act, 1976, the cognizance taken against petitioner no.2. without a written complaint made by the Central Government or any offence authorised in this behalf by that govt. is bad and the same could not have been taken. 5. Mr. Satya Narian Sinha, learned a. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State fairly submits that except the allegation of connivance, there is no specific allegation against petitioner No.2. in the f. I. R. However he contends that the executive Engineer opposite party No.2 was of the opinion that the Govt. fund was misappropriated by the aforesaid three accused persons in connivance with each other and when cognizance has been taken the High Court should be loath in interfering with the order taking cognizance. 6. Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad on behalf of the informant vehementally argued that the allegation made in the f. I. R. constitute a cognizable offence against the petitioner and the Court below after perusal of relevant records has taken cognizance and, as such interference by the High Court at this stage is not called for. He further submits that if petitioner No.2. is actually innocent, he will be acquitted by the court below in due course. 7. The power of High Court relating to exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) have been some what settled by the Apex Court in a recent time. is actually innocent, he will be acquitted by the court below in due course. 7. The power of High Court relating to exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) have been some what settled by the Apex Court in a recent time. In the case of State of Haryana and other V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and other reported in a. I. R.1992 SC 604, in paragraph 108 some guidelines have been formulated by the Supreme Court for exercising such powers. Some of the guidelines are as follows: "where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint are so. absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " 8. In the backdrops of aforesaid guidelines, if the allegations made in the f. I. R. and subsequent development in the present case are scrutinised in my opinion, no case is made out against the petitioner No.2. As I have already indicated above, the entire allegation is pinpointed against the Junior Engineer and the transporter. The informant with clear term alleged that whereas the entire quantity of bitumen was received by paul in several lots between 17.5.90 to 9.6.90 (wrongly typed as 9.5.90) but only 10.016 M. T. of bitumen was received in the godown. The said Mandal was directed to take the delivery of bitumen from the Corporation at Haldia and to get it transported from Haldia to Khunti. This fact is clear from the statement that a transportation charges amounting to Rs.35,000 was given to the Junior engineer as an advance. The said Mandal was directed to take the delivery of bitumen from the Corporation at Haldia and to get it transported from Haldia to Khunti. This fact is clear from the statement that a transportation charges amounting to Rs.35,000 was given to the Junior engineer as an advance. In order to implicate petitioner No.2 as well as the corporation a bald statement has been made that the Deputy Manager (Bitumen) though was given a clear direction to deliver the goods to Mandal but the delivery was made to the transporter by the petitioner No.2 has been alleged in the F. I. R. 9. In this connection another aspect of the case has also to be considered. It is not in dispute that when the Corporation came to know that the entire bitumen was not received at khunti it immediately lodged F. I. R. at tamluk in West Bengal against the junior Engineer, Sri Giridhar Mandal, r. E. O. as well as Atul Chadra Paul of m/s Paul Roadline Hazra More, Haldia. This F. I. R. ,a copy of which has been annexed as annexure 6 to this petition is dated 16.12.90. It appears that as soon as opposite party No.2 came to know about this F. I. R. lodged by the corporation, One of his subordinates, he filed the instant F. I. R. on 21.12.90. 10. It does not stand to reason as to why when fifth fact was known to the executive Engineer in late October, 1990, he informed the matter to the police on 21.12.90. I also fail to understand as to why no F. I. R. was filed by opposite party No.2 before the EI. R. filed by the Corporation at Tamil. In my view, the action of opposite party No.2 is not above board. 11. The another question which is relevant to be considered is that when definite allegation was against Sri Mandal, why the informant did not take any step for obtaining necessary sanction from the Government for his prosecution why did he allow the court to deter the matter of taking cognizance as far as sri Mandal and the transporter, he ought to have taken necessary steps for proceeding against Sri Mandal. Mr. Sinha, Learned A. P. P. has fairly submitted that this inaction on the party of executive Engineer is really suspicious. 12. Mr. Sinha, Learned A. P. P. has fairly submitted that this inaction on the party of executive Engineer is really suspicious. 12. I am aware of my jurisdiction in entering into the defence of the petitioner at this stage. But, in my view if the allegation made in the EI. R. does not constitute an offence, the High court will not be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code in quashing the order taking cognizance. My view will find support by the decision in the case of vijay Kumar Thakur V/s. Professor Mahesh prasad Singh, reported in 1991 (II)PLJR 315, where after noticing several decisions of the Supreme Court this court had held no doubt at the initial stage the Court has to se whether the allegations constitute an offence or not and if the allegations are there this court in exercise of its inherent powers will not quash the proceeding at the threshhold. However, if the material on record show that the case has been instituted for different purpose and not for punishing the accused for the acts and omission constituting an offence then this Court to be abused by the complaint opposite party. 13. I have already noticed the conduct of opposite party No.2 not only in filing the belated EI. R. making vague allegations against petitioner No.2 but also for not taking any step for procuring sanction order for proceeding against the Junior Engineer who is admittedly his subordinate. Under these circumstances in my view the continuation of the proceeding against the petitioners will be an abuse of the processes of the Court. 14. In the result, this application is allowed the order taking cognizance as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. As I have allowed this petition on the first point itself urged by Mr. Sinha, I need not go into the merits of his second submission. Application Allowed.