Order 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.10.1995 passed by the Special Magistrate, C.B.I. Patna in R.C. 25(S)95 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 197 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A first information report (copy at annexure 1) was filed against the petitioner by the Inspector, C.B.I. SPE, Patna, alleging that the petitioner has obtained the dealership of Petrel Pump from the Indian Oil Corporation by making false statement regarding his annual income in the application form. It is alleged that only those persons were eligible to get dealership of a petrol pump whose annual income did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand). The petitioner disclosed his annual income to be Rs. 30,000/- from the property and Rs. 15,000/- from his agricultural land. He concealed the fact that he also derives income from M/s Hindustan Transport, Banjari, Rohtas of which he is the owner. It was alleged that by concealing the real income the petitioner has cheated the Indian Oil Corporation and obtained the dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation by stating that his income did not exceed Rs. 45,000/-. 3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. The copy of the charge sheet is at annexure A of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the charge sheet and the case diary found the prima facie case against the petitioner and accordingly took cognizance against him for the offences punishable under Section 420/197 of the Indian Penal Code by impugned order dated 16.10.95. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no false representation was made by the petitioner and the petitioner had mentioned his Bank account of Hindustan Transport in State Bank of India showing deposit of Rs.1,00,574/-. It is contended that there was no concealment of any income and the Selection Board being satisfied with the details given in the application have granted the dealership to the petitioner. It is contended that there was no concealment of any income and the Selection Board being satisfied with the details given in the application have granted the dealership to the petitioner. It is further contended that in the application form it was specifically stated in column 9 that if any information given regarding annual income is found to be untrue, incorrect or false, the application would be liable to be rejected at any stage and in case letter of intent has been issued or the dealership has been commission the same would be liable to be withdrawn or the dealership/distributorship may be terminated. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the terms given in the application from the Indian Oil Corporation would have terminated the dealership of the petitioner if the statement regarding annual income was found to be untrue or false but the dealership of the petitioner has not been terminated as yet. It is further contended that there was no wrongful loss to the Indian Oil Corporation and no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the C.B.I. has lodged the report and investigated the offence without there being any complaint by the Indian Oil Corporation against the petitioner. 6. As regards the contention that there has been any concealment of the statement of the income in the application form the petitioner has filed the copy of the application as annexure 2 of this application. In the said application in the column meant for details of amount in bank the name of Hindustan Transport, Banjari has also been mentioned as in the column meant for the account holder and the amount in that account has been shown as Rs. 1,00,574/-. This description finds place under the heading 'details of source of fund'. The column is not meant for the annual income. The annexure 2 does not contain any declaration regarding annual income. The documentary proof was required to prove the annual Income. According to the averment made in the present application the petitioner has not concealed anything in his application. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner had shown his annual income to be Rs. 45,000/- which included Rs. 30,000/- for property and Rs. 15,000/- from his agricultural land. The documentary proof was required to prove the annual Income. According to the averment made in the present application the petitioner has not concealed anything in his application. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner had shown his annual income to be Rs. 45,000/- which included Rs. 30,000/- for property and Rs. 15,000/- from his agricultural land. There is specific allegation that he had not disclosed the income from the ownership of M/s Hindustan Transport, Banjari. Copy of the application which has been filed by the petitioner does not indicate as to what income was shown by the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the statement which he had submitted regarding his income along with application form. The current account in State Bank of India in the name of M/s Hindustan Transport has nothing to do with the annual income. The amount in recent account has been mentioned in the column which is meant for details of source of fund. In any case after completion of investigation it has been found, according to the averment made in the charge sheet that the petitioner had shown only Rs. 45,000/- as his annual income which included Rs. 30,000/- as income from property and Rs. 15,000/- as income from agriculture and he did not disclose his income from M/s Hindustan Transport and M/s Banjari Carriers and also the income derived by his wife from one proprietorship firm M/s Homa Enterprises and the income from these business are not disclosed in the documents accompanying the application form. The matter relates to the question of fact which can be looked into at the trial. At present it is not expedient to adjudicate on that question as to what income the petitioner had when he had applied for the dealership. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of false statement regarding annual income the Indian Oil Corporation could have terminated the dealership and in that view no other action is warranted, it may be said that the Indian Oil Corporation had reserved the right to terminate the dealership being any statement regarding income was found to be untrue but that by itself did not absolve a person from criminal liability if when an offence has been committed by making false statement or representation. According to the first information report as well as the charge sheet the dealership was obtained by making false statement and concealing the real income and this was done in order to show the petitioner to be a person who was having annual income not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- so as to be eligible to apply for the dealership. I have also perused the case diary which has been produced by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. No reference to the evidence collected in the investigation is to be made here. Suffice it to say that the charge sheet is based on the basis of materials collected during investigation. If a charge sheet has been led after investigation the cognizance order ought not to be quashed under inherent powers of the Court. The Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 37) has observed that after the investigation is concluded and the charge sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the charge sheet and at that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance as it would be done after the trial is concluded. It has further observed that the court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses on the record in support thereof whether the court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. It is also observed that when Investigating Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge sheet before the court, further action should not be short circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge sheet. The Supreme Court has held that only in exceptional cases i.e. in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance the criminal process is availed of in laying a complaint or HR which itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence and the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said case it does not appear to be a rarest of rare case so as to exercise inherent power of the court to quash cognizance order which is based on the charge sheet and the materials contained in the case diary. If the petitioner has any defence he can make it at the trial at the proper stage and the trial court may consider the same. In my opinion, it is not a fit case for quashing the cognizance order under the inherent powers of this Court. The application is dismissed accordingly.