ORDER S.R. Bannurmath, J.—These two petitions arise against the order dated 10th June, 1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere. 2. These matters were posted for admission and on the appearance of Sri Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent the same were heard at length and at request the same were adjourned to 16.6.1999. On 16.6.1999 at the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the case was adjourned to today. Though the matter is part heard and as the Court expressed certain opinion, today the learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed time for two weeks on the ground that the Respondent intends to engage another Counsel. The Respondent is aware of the matter being part heard through his Counsel and the Counsel has not filed any retirement memo nor any alternate arrangement is made. In my view, this is an attempt to get the matter adjourned. Later the matter is called up none present for the Respondent. As such the Court has no alternate except to proceed with the same as the same is part heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a complaint on 20.11.1996 before the Davangere K.T.G., Nagar Police, alleging that the Respondent proposed accused who are the bank officials have committed offences under Sections 418 and 420 Indian Penal Code The gist of the offences are that the Petitioner had an account in the Corporation Bank, P.B. Road, Davangere. The Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 825 of 1998 are Manager, Accountants and the Petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 804 of 1998 is an employee in another bank namely Syndicate Bank, Davangere. It is the case of the complainant that he had opened the CBC No. 179 in the name of the firm M/s. Hallikere Sales Agencies. Subsequently, according to the complainant, the partnership was cancelled and he became the sole proprietor of the concern which fact according to the complainant was intimated to the bank. Thereafter on 30.9.1996 when the complainant went to the bank to draw certain amount on getting the upto date entries from the pass book he noticed that a sum of Rs. 55,750/- has been withdrawn and delivered from his account under the cheque No. 49108, dated 19.9.1996. Thereafter on 30.9.1996 when the complainant went to the bank to draw certain amount on getting the upto date entries from the pass book he noticed that a sum of Rs. 55,750/- has been withdrawn and delivered from his account under the cheque No. 49108, dated 19.9.1996. The complainant alleges that on verification from the bank office, it is found that the said cheque was presented and the amount was withdrawn by one Jagannath who according to the Petitioner was unknown to him and no cheque was delivered or issued to the said person. It is alleged that since the cheque book was issued for the partnership concern, it is the accused-bank officials either due to negligence or deliberately have permitted the amount to be withdrawn from the account of the complainant. As such it is alleged that by cheating the complainant the Petitioners-accused have also misappropriated the amount. On receipt of the complaint, the concerned police registered a case in Crime No. 194 of 1996 and took up investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police filed that 'C' report showing false case. The Respondent-complainant filed a protest petition and after considering the rival contentions by the impugned order dated 10.6.1998 the trial Court took cognizance against the accused and issued process. Hence, the present revision petitions. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that even though the complaint if accepted as it is there is absolutely no material to show that the Petitioners have committed any of the offences charged with. The entire material available before the trial Court would not disclose even prima facie any offence against the Petitioners and as such taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the Petitioners and issuing process is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand on the earlier occasion the learned Counsel Sri Seetharama Rao opposed the Petitioner and supporting the findings of the trial Court contended that the Petitioners being the custodian of the amount deposited in their bank by the complainant either with negligence or deliberate attempt have shown that a sum of Rs. 55,750/- being paid to one Jagannath. Thus the Petitioners who are under the bounden duty having debiting the amount so committed an offence under Section 418 Indian Penal Code. 55,750/- being paid to one Jagannath. Thus the Petitioners who are under the bounden duty having debiting the amount so committed an offence under Section 418 Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that in view of the reports of the Investigating Agency it is seen that the said M. Jagannath appears to be untraced and as such inference has to be drawn that he was a non-existent person and the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the Petitioners-bank officials have colluded together in order to cheat the complainant with sole intention of misappropriation of the entire amount belonging to the complainant. It is also contended that this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction should be circumspect while exercising the same as the jurisdiction and scope of revisional power is limited one. It is further contended that even if the Petitioners have got strong case it is not the stage at which this Court can interfere with the well considered order. As it is always open for the Petitioners to pray for discharge after the charges are framed and the prayer in this petition is prematured one. 6. So far as the law regarding the scope and jurisdiction of this Court exercising revisional powers is concerned is well settled. Right from the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, AIR 1976 SC 1947 , State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sanchaita Investments and Others, AIR 1982 SC 949 , State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 , Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration 1996 (5) Supreme 742 and the latest pronouncement in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, AIR 1998 SC 128 the Apex Court has laid down that though the revision jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and should be sparingly used, nonetheless, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that any order is passed which is prima facie illegal or amounts to abuse of process, the High Court should not hesitate in quashing the proceedings after being satisfied with the contentions. It is also clear from the various pronouncements referred to above, if the first information report or the complaint has been filed by the complainant even if accepted as it is and if it does not make out any case or commission of offence alleged by any of the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings as directing the accused to face the trial or even go to the trial Court and against pray for discharge would amount to subjecting the accused of agony of trial. Keeping in view these dictas laid down by the Apex Court, let me proceed to consider the case on hand. 7. As stated earlier, the allegation of the complainant is that by the entries in the pass book he noticed that certain amount has been paid to one Jagannath on his presenting a cheque signed by the complainant. The only contention of the complainant is that as the seal along with his signature on the cheque pertains to partnership concern, the same ought not to have been entertained by the bank and by not being vigilent their conduct leads to suspicion that they have colluded with the said Jagannath to deprive the complainant of his money from the bank. It is noticed from the records produced that immediately on the complainants request to the bank to find out about the truth or otherwise about the cheque, the bank infact had sent the cheque for handwriting expert along with the undisputed signature of the complainant and as per the report of the expert, it is the signature of the complainant himself. Be that as it may, even on perusal of the entire complaint, it does not make out any case of either cheating or misappropriation by any of the Petitioners alleged accused much less individually. Except saying that the Petitioner in the second petition 825 of 1998 are officials of the bank there does not appear to be any allegation against them for their alleged individual act of commission or omission resulting into alleged offences under Sections 418, 420 and 409 Indian Penal Code In order to prove the ingredients of these aforesaid offences, there must be definite allegations against each of the accused as to how they can be held as guilty of the offences. As noted except the bald allegation there is absolutely no connection which can be made out against the complainant. In case of the Petitioners in the connected case, it is seen that he is neither the employee of the Corporation Bank nor he is alleged to be anyway connected either with the Corporation Bank or having to do anything with the complainant itself. A situation a person unconnected with the complainant or the concerned bank with the alleged offence of misappropriation or cheating by permitting a person to withdraw the money cannot be imagined. Absolutely there is no material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. After giving much consideration to the entire aspect of the case, I am of the view that even if the complaint is accepted as it is without adding or subtracting anything from it, the same does not make out any one of the offence committed by the Petitioners much less collectively by them. Surprisingly, even there is no allegation of either meeting of mind of all the accused collectively or they doing any conspiracy in order to cheat the complainant and misappropriate the amount. Hence, as the complaint and the records do not disclose any of the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners, in my view, this is a fit case to quash the proceedings exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the result revision petitions are allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 436 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere, are hereby quashed.