( 1 ) THROUGH this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applican has prayed for quashing an F. I. R. dated 25. 8. 1998 lodged at p. S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun under Section 420, I. P. C. in case crime No. 338 of 1998. ( 2 ) WHEN asked if the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. could be exercised to quash an F. I. R. in view of the judgment of this Cour in Ram Lal Yadavs case and A. S. Bindras case the learned counsel submitted that the cases may be distinguished as the F. I. R. was against a corporate authority and no Criminal action lies against a corporate authority as no individual was named as an accused. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in JT 1997 (10) S. C. 165 as also on an unreported decision of this high Court dated 8. 5. 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9353 of 1986. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case may be stated in brief before the law point could be taken up. The F. I. R. now under challenge is at annexure 14 to the present application which was lodged on the basis of a report from the Superintending Engineer, U. P. Jal Nigam at Dehradun, which is at Annexure 13 to the present application. The report was made to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police Station stating that M/s M. K. Vinyl (P) Ltd. Had supplied to the Jal Nigam, between February and July, 1997, certain quantity of pipe of certain specifications under an indent from the Department. Payment was made by the Department to the Firm, but on actul use the pipes were found broken and suffering from excessive leakage. The pipes were inspected by the experts from the Roorkee University as also from Shri Ram Institute for Industrial and Research and the same were found not in conformity with the standard given by the indian Standard Institute and as such the Department was cheated. ( 4 ) AN F. I. R. is to be drawn up under Section 154, Cr. P. C. when an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station. If it is given orally, it is to be reduced into writing and is to be readover to the informant. ( 4 ) AN F. I. R. is to be drawn up under Section 154, Cr. P. C. when an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station. If it is given orally, it is to be reduced into writing and is to be readover to the informant. Every such information of commission of cognizable offence is to be signed by the person giving the information and the substance thereof is to be entered in a book to be kept by the officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. This is popularly known as the F. I. R. (First Information Report ). Loding of an F. I. R. nodoubt requires information relating to commission of a cognizable offence but it no where requires that any particular person be named as perpetrator of the offence. It may not, therefore, be proper to describe an F. I. R. to be untenable in law simply because it neames a corporate person as an accused. ( 5 ) THE case law, that has been relied upon, does not cover the instant point. Here was a case before the Supreme Court in which in a prosection under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the accused was acquitted by the Magistrate on the ground of absence of the complalnant. The complalnt was, however, filed by a company and was not a corporal person capable of making physical presence in the court. The Supreme Court observed that where the complalnant is a body corporate it is dejure complalnant and it must associate a human being as defecto complalnant to represent the company. In case of absence of a corporal representative, the company could seek permission of the court to send another person to represent it. The Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal on the ground of absence of the company as the complalnant and other witnesses had already been examined by the court. The Supreme court in explalning the term complalnant had referred to the word person as defined in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code which states that the word person includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. The Supreme court in explalning the term complalnant had referred to the word person as defined in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code which states that the word person includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. An offence of cheating is defined under Section 415, I. P. C. and it is made punishable under section 420, I. P. C. and Section 420, I. P. C. begins with the words whoever cheats. An offence of cheating could be committed on proof of certain components like deception, fradulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property and damage or harm to the person deceived in respect of his property. This deception, prima facie, was made by the Firm and only investigation could reveal as to who were the persons actually involved in the act of deception and inducement which resulted in damage or harm to the property of the complalnant. ( 6 ) THE records of the unreported case were not available from the office nor did the learned counsel place a copy of the orders before me. The position of law is, however, clear. If there be a prima facie allegation of commission of a cognizable offence, an F. I. R. can be drawn up and investigation can be taken up. There is no necessity of mention of the name of the accused and as such naming a corporate person as an accused may not be a legal bar against entertainment of an F. I. R. once this point fails, we are back to the general question whether an F. I. R. could be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The decision in the case of A. S. Bindra was referred to by the learned counsel to say that it was open to distinction because of the above ground. When that ground has failed, there is no reason to distinguish the decision in A. S. Bindras case. That case has been relied on even recently by this Court on 11. 9. 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3517 of 1998 (Mrinal kanti Mallich and others V. State of U. P. and another ). The applicants in that case were also directed to seek relief in a proper writ petition. That case has been relied on even recently by this Court on 11. 9. 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3517 of 1998 (Mrinal kanti Mallich and others V. State of U. P. and another ). The applicants in that case were also directed to seek relief in a proper writ petition. ( 7 ) THE present application, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction that the applicant may choose to file a writ petition for proper relief as the relief prayed for may not be granted under section 482, Cr. P. C. .