ORDER: This O.P. has been filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the respondent in Crime No.2 of 1998 and quash the same. 2. The Tamil Nadu Basket Ball Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Association” for short) has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is the Honourary Secretary of the said Association. The Association is the Apex body so far as the activities of Basket Ball game in Tamil Nadu is concerned and its activities are spread all over Tamil Nadu through the respective District Association. The said Association is having its indoor stadium at Block No.7, Playground Street, Madras-10. The said stadium can accommodate 5,000 persons and is unique of its kind and has got all the infrastructure facilities. It is named after the former Chief Minister Dr.J.Jayalalitha. 3. The Government of India decided to conduct South Asian Federation Games (hereinafter referred to as the “SAF Games” in India between 18.12.1995 and 27.12.1995 and chose Madras as the venue for the said games. As the teams from several countries expressed their willingness to participate, it was decided to air-condition the indoor basket ball stadium with international standards. The Chairman and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as TAMIN for short) and the Member Secretary of the said Committee to air-condition the stadium, collected a sum of Rs.4,20,000 approximately through official publicity agency, sponsorship of stadium, sponsorship of games and by printing souvenirs. A proposal was made out by TAMIN to sponsor and provide air-conditioning system to the stadium at c cost of Rs.125 lakhs and the proposal was submitted to the Government by the Association. Certain additional amenities were also required at the stadium besides centralized air-conditioning system, like, special maintenance works, for air-conditioning allied civil works to be carried out, propositions for additional lighting for colour television, telecasting of the matches, provisions for appropriate sound system and provisions for transformer. As far as the request regarding air-conditioning, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.276, Industries (MME-II) Department, dated 13.12.1995 accepting sanction and payment of Rs.125 lakhs and directed the Government Company, TAMIN. Subsequently, TAMIN by its office Sanction Order No.22414/SAF/95, dated 15.12.1995 sanctioned the amount of Rs.125 lakhs towards air-conditioning of Basket Ball Complex and connected civil and electrical works. As far as the request regarding air-conditioning, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.276, Industries (MME-II) Department, dated 13.12.1995 accepting sanction and payment of Rs.125 lakhs and directed the Government Company, TAMIN. Subsequently, TAMIN by its office Sanction Order No.22414/SAF/95, dated 15.12.1995 sanctioned the amount of Rs.125 lakhs towards air-conditioning of Basket Ball Complex and connected civil and electrical works. A sum of Rs.8 lakhs alone was initially paid on 15.12.1995 as advance by TAMIN towards the above work. A letter dated 2.2.1996 captioned as sanction order, authorised the release of the balance Rs.117 lakhs imposing the following conditions: (a) The Association should render accounts for the amount contributed by TAMIN; (b) They should produce the copies of vouchers; (c) They should produce a certificate for having completed the work; and (d) The Association should once in a fortnight send details of expenditure incurred out of the contribution of TAMIN and also the progress of work. The amount sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu was credited to the Savings Bank Account No.14463, Tamil Nadu Basket Ball Association (A/c Project) in Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch. The entire financial transaction relating to air-conditioning civil and electrical works were dealt under that account only. However, by letter dated 30.9.1996, the Indian Overseas Bank wherein the SB Account of the Association was lying, stating the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, issued an order under Sec.281-B of the Income Tax Act provisionally attaching the Bank not to permit the Association and requesting the Bank not to permit the Association to operate the account. During January, 1996, the Income Tax Officials conducted a search in the premises No.M-26, Anna Nagar, Madras owned by the two sons of the Chairman of the Association and as a consequence have attached the funds of the Association provided by TAMIN. A contribution of Rs.27.46 lakhs received by the Association made by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the Department of Education was also lying with the Association. The air-conditioning of the stadium could not be proceeded with due to the attachment of the Income Tax Department, namely, beyond the control of the Association. Law permits the act of God which is otherwise known as “Vis Major” as an acceptable reason in such situation. The air-conditioning of the stadium could not be proceeded with due to the attachment of the Income Tax Department, namely, beyond the control of the Association. Law permits the act of God which is otherwise known as “Vis Major” as an acceptable reason in such situation. The Government of Tamil Nadu suffered as the contribution made by it stands in the position of a donor and the association as a donee and the contribution the Government made has become absolute and there is no provision for revocation or it could be demanded by the Government to be refunded. The new Government took office subsequent to the general elections held in May, 1996 and it had resulted in unnecessary demand of return of the money frozen by the Income Tax Officials. A complaint has been preferred by the Government company to return the amount and a case in Crime No.2 of 1998 under Sec.409, I.P.C. has been registered against the Honorary Secretary as well as the Chief Patron and Chairman of the Association as if the funds have not been utilised by the Association which is false. The representations made by the Association did not bear any fruit and the investigation is being proceeded with W.P.No.6298 of 1998 had been filed by the Association for the refund of the amount to the Government company as the Association became frustrated. The complaint has been preferred with the sole aim to harass the accused mentioned in the FIR including the Honorary Secretary. The contents of the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence and, therefore, in order to prevent harassment and the mala fide approach with political motives, the petition has been filed. 4. Though several contentions have been raised in the counter filed, it is suffice to state that the amount of Rs.125 lakhs was entrusted to the petitioner and A.N.Dyaneswaran and they had dominion over the said amount in the capacity of Secretary and Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Basket Ball Association from 15.12.1995 in respect of Rs.8 lakhs; and from 2.2.1996 in respect of Rs.117 lakhs and the amounts were not utilised for air-conditioning the stadium till the conclusion of the SAF Games and even till date. The attachment by the Income Tax Department happened only on 13.9.1996. The attachment by the Income Tax Department happened only on 13.9.1996. No accounts have been submitted in respect of the Rs.8 lakhs or any portion of the amount which shows the misappropriation and hence the petition has to be dismissed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in Crime No.2 of 1998 on the file of the respondent is liable to be quashed? 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner forcibly contended the FIR filed in the case, namely, Crime No.2 of 1998 on the file of the respondent does not disclose a cognizable offence and, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the respondent to further investigate the matter and the same is liable to be quashed. It is further contended the money received from the Government of Tamil Nadu for air-conditioning the indoor stadium has been credited by the petitioner/ accused and another in S.B.A/ c.No.14463, Kilpauk Branch and the money is in tact. The Income Tax Department attached and freezed the said amount, in the consequence, the petitioner and patron of the Association could not withdraw the money for the purpose for which it was contributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Further, the Government Company TAMIN who had sent the money as per the orders of Government of Tamil Nadu, wrote a letter for refunding the amount. Even though the petitioner and another was very eager and took all the efforts sincerely to air-condition the indoor stadium for the purpose of conducting the SAF Games scheduled to be held between 18.12.1995 and 27.12.1995, the same could not be achieved by the attachment of the amount by the Income Tax Department and the demand of the Government Company to refund the amount. The Income Tax Department was not satisfied with the correspondence of the petitioner and was adamant in freezing the amount even though the moneys of the Association are not liable to be attached. The Income Tax Department was not satisfied with the correspondence of the petitioner and was adamant in freezing the amount even though the moneys of the Association are not liable to be attached. In the above circumstances, W.P.No.6298 of 1998 had been filed before this Court to issue appropriate directions to the Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch to refund the amount to TAMIN with interest to show the bona fides and this Court by its order dated 12.12.2000 had allowed the writ petition and passed the necessary orders and now the money contributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu had been refunded to the Government Company and, therefore, no offence has been committed by the petitioner and another and that is another reason to quash the proceedings. 7. Several decisions have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention that FIR can be quashed by this Court, which are: (1) State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 949; (2) Hasan Ali Khan v. State, 1992 Crl.L.J. 1828; (3) S.K.Belal v. State of Orissa, 1994 Crl.L.J. 467; (4) Deep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab, 1997 Crl.L.J. 3104; (5) Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Crl.L.J. 3297; (6) M/s.Shrei International Finance Limited v. M.G.Narayana, 1998 Crl.L.J. 2220; (7) Vimal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Crl.L.J. 128 and (8) Rakesh Ranjan Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, (1999)1 S.C.C. 188 . 8. A careful perusal of all the decisions reiterate one salient principle of law, namely, the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Sec.157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the FIR must disclose prima facie, a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under Sec.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry in conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the FIR prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. On the other hand, if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code. 9. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to quote the relevant portions laying down the ratio decidendi in all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the principle enunciated in all the decisions is the same. 10.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence is totally wrong. A total amount of Rs.125 lakhs had been contributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of air-conditioning the Indoor stadium at Block 7, Playground Street, Madras-10 with international standards so that the South Asian Federation Games scheduled to be held between 18.12.1995 and 27.12.1995 could be conducted in the said stadium. It was pointed out in the Savings Bank Account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch, namely, S.B.A/c.No.14463, only a sum of Rs.117 lakhs had been credited. The initial payment of Rs.8 lakhs made for the said purpose had not been credited to the said Savings Bank Account and no accounts had been submitted at any time as to how the said amount of Rs.8 lakhs had been utilised, which prima facie show that the amount had been misappropriated. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Income Tax Department had not attached the amount totally prohibiting the petitioner and another from operating the account for any purpose and it is not a total freezing of the account. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Income Tax Department had not attached the amount totally prohibiting the petitioner and another from operating the account for any purpose and it is not a total freezing of the account. The attention of this Court is invited to the letter dated 30.9.1996 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Madras-34 wherein it is stated as below: “Enclosed herewith please find an order under Sec.281-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.9.1996, provisionally attaching the bank account No.14463-SB standing in the name of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association (A.C.Project), Dr.J.Jayalalitha Indoor Stadium, 8/7, Playground Street, Kilpauk Garden Colony, Kilpauk, Madras-10. You are hereby informed that you are not allowed to operate the account except with the express and written approval of the undersigned”. It was pointed out that the account could very well be operated with the written approval of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. There is no evidence to show that at any time the petitioner and another wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax seeking approval to operate the account to make arrangements to air-condition the stadium, namely, the purpose for which the amount was contributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. If the petitioner and another had convinced the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the account has to be operated and amounts have to be withdrawn for the genuine purpose of air-conditioning the stadium, it might have been possible that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax would have granted approval, but nothing had been done, except stating in their correspondence that the Income Tax raid is unjustified and the amount of the Association could not be attached as the raid had been conducted in respect of some other persons. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in State of U.P. v. O.P.Sharma, 1996 S.C.C. (Crl.) 497, wherein it had been laid down in paras 10, 11 and 14 which are extracted below: 10. Dr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that though the respondent had sought for licence, the licence had not been given to him, and therefore, he cannot be proceeded with. Dr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that though the respondent had sought for licence, the licence had not been given to him, and therefore, he cannot be proceeded with. He also further contended that the FIR does not contain all the ingredients of the offence and, therefore, the High Court was right in quashing the FIR. It is seen that the complaint is self-explanatory and has specifically mentioned about the storage of oil and oilseeds without licence under the respective orders. It is not in dispute that the FIR did mention that he purchased and kept in store the above quantity. Thus the ingredients have been specified. Whether he has applied for licence or not, we are not concerned with the controversy in this case. 11. The question then is: Whether the High Court is right in its exercise of inherent power under Sec.482, Crl.P.C.? This Court in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, (1996)2 S.C.C. 37 , held as under: (SCC pp.44-45. paras 12-13). "It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/ charge-sheet/ complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, its first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sec.161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. 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 noncompliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether Court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose of all any cognizable offence - the Court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power. When the remedy under Sec.482 is available, the High Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under Art.226 since efficacious remedy under Sec.482 of the Code is available. When the Court exercises its inherent power under Sec.482, the prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 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 social stability and order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before embarking upon exercising inherent power. The accused involved in an economic offence destablishes the economy and causes grave incursion on the economic planning of the State. When the legislature entrusts the power to the police officer to prevent organised commission of the offence or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with power to investigate into the crime in intractable terrains and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its inherent power. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and to grave risk. The accused will have field day in destablising the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions. 14. We accordingly hold that the High Court has committed grave error of law in quashing the FIR. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and to grave risk. The accused will have field day in destablising the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions. 14. We accordingly hold that the High Court has committed grave error of law in quashing the FIR. The High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., or under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course." The other decisions cited by the learned Public Prosecutor, namely, (1) K.Ramamurthy v. State, 1991 L.W. (Crl.)98; (2) M.Natarajan v. The Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, etc. and others, (1999)2 L.W. (Crl.) 708; (3) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others, (1999)2 L.W. (Crl.) 649 and (4) Union of India v. E.R.Bajaj and others, 1994 S.C.C. (Crl.) 477, reiterate the same principle of law regarding the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 12. In the case on hand, the fact that a sum of Rs.8 lakhs was initially entrusted on 15.12.1996 as advance amount by TAMIN out of the total contribution of Rs.125 lakhs and the petitioner and another had dominion over the same and by letter dated 2.2.1996 sanction order authorising release of Rs.117 lakhs and that the following conditions are imposed, namely, (a) the Association should render accounts for the amount contributed by TAMIN; (b) they should produce the copies of vouchers; (c) they should produce a Certificate for having completed the work and (d) the Association should once in a fortnight send details of expenditure incurred out of the contribution of TAMIN and also the progress in the work, is not denied by the petitioner and another. By virtue of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6298 of 1998 filed by the Basket Ball Association to refund the amount available in S.B. Account No.14463, Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu stands in the position of a donor and the petitioner and another in the position of donees and once the donation amount is entrusted to the donee, it becomes the absolute property of the donees on the donar has no right to question the manner in which the amount was spent. The amount has been given only as a contribution and not as a donation is seen from the Government Orders. When the sum of Rs.8 lakhs, namely, the initial payment had been entrusted to the petitioner and another, it is their duty to render accounts as per the conditions imposed. Whether the said amount of Rs.8 lakhs has been properly utilised and the reason as to why the remaining amount of Rs.117 lakhs could not be utilised by the petitioner and another and whether they have convinced the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Madras-34 and made genuine attempts to withdraw the amount after getting the necessary approval for achieving the object of air-conditioning the Indoor Stadium and they were prevented by Act of God, namely, Major are all matters of evidence and this Court cannot pre-empt the same by quashing the proceedings by exercising its inherent power under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. as in my opinion, the same is neither an exceptional case nor a case of rarest of the rare as pointed out by the Supreme Court of India. The criticism that the case has been registered under Sec.409, I.P.C. is wrong is a matter to be considered by the trial Magistrate at the time of framing the charges after the conclusion of the investigation. At that time, the petitioner and another are at liberty to point out that Sec.409, I.P.C. is not the correct Section of law. The criticism that the case has been registered under Sec.409, I.P.C. is wrong is a matter to be considered by the trial Magistrate at the time of framing the charges after the conclusion of the investigation. At that time, the petitioner and another are at liberty to point out that Sec.409, I.P.C. is not the correct Section of law. It is the settled principle that a Magistrate is not bound by the provision of law under which a final report is filed and framing charges under the correct Section of the law is the exclusive domain of the Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, I find it difficult to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. So far as the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and another would submit accounts to the concerned authority and they are also willing to return the sum of Rs.8 lakhs paid as initial payment for air-conditioning the stadium, in my opinion, is also a matter to be put forth before the trial Magistrate. If the offence can be lawfully compound, there is no prohibition for the petitioner and another to take recourse to the same. I am clearly of the opinion that the willingness of the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.8 lakhs and also render accounts for the amount received as contribution from the Government of Tamil Nadu will not absolve the criminal liability as criminal liability is entirely distinct and separate from civil liability. The Government of Tamil Nadu if it chooses can take civil action against the petitioner and another or against the concerned persons to recover the amount of Rs.8 lakhs made as initial payment or it may choose to leave the matter without further action and the same will not have any bearing on the present case. Therefore, I find no ground to invoke the inherent power vested in this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent is directed to investigate the matter thoroughly and impartially. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed.