JUDGMENT 1. - The following FIR No. RC16(A)/97/SPE/CBi/dated 30.7.97 was recorded - 'It has been revealed from the source that Dr. Laxmi Chand Mathur S/o Jagdamba Lal Mathur and Shri Chatanya Prakash Mathur S/o L.C. Mathur both partner of Laxmi imaging and Medical Research Centre, 38, Kanota Bagh, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as party) entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown officials of Directorate General Health Services, New Delhi and in pursuance thereof procured CUSTOM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR IMPORT OF GE MRI-MAX Plus MRI System costing Rs. 86 lacs on false pretences and thereby cheated the Central Government to the tune of Rs. equivalent to custom duty waived on Import of said medical equipment. The unknown officials fraudulently and dishonestly in order to cause undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and above party issued the said certificate by entertaining the false/forged documents submitted by the said party. In furtherance to said criminal conspiracy, the party executed a lease deed on 7th Sept. 1993 with Dr. B.R. Soni following which one room was leased out for the installation or above MRI machine in the, premises situated at 38, Kanota Bagh, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. JBuL subsequently the said machine was fraudulently utilized' of Dr. B.R. Soni in his hospital i.e. Soni Hospital under the arrangement of gaving undue consideration to said party. 2. Dr. L.C. Mathur and his son Chatanya Prakash Mathur executed a partnership deed on 10th Sept. 1993 to set up the Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as Research Centre). Thereafter, the party vide letter dated 13.9.93 addressed to Director Medical Health Services Jaipur requested for issuing of CUSTOM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE in order to Import of GEMRI Max + System machine from abroad for exclusive use of his Hospital/Research Centre while applying for the certificate, the party had also given following 12 points undertakings- 1. Certified that the institution will provide treatment without distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language. 2. Certified that the institution will provide free treatment on an average, to at least 40% of all their outdoor patients. 3. Certified that the Institution will provide treatment to patients belonging to families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month and for this purpose 10% beds will be reserved for them, but of the total capacity/availability of beds in the institution. 4. 3. Certified that the Institution will provide treatment to patients belonging to families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month and for this purpose 10% beds will be reserved for them, but of the total capacity/availability of beds in the institution. 4. Certified that the Institution will provide treatment at reasonable charges, either on the basis of the income of the patients concerned or otherwise, to patients other than those specified in Certificates noted at (2) & (3) above. 5. Certified that the Hospital equipment to be imported by the institution will be used "only by it, will not be removed from the premises for private use and that it will not be sold or otherwise disposed of without prior permission of the Ministry of Health & F.N./D.GHS. 6. Certified that it will be ensured that the imported equipment will be installed in the premises of the concerned institution within a period of 30 days from the date of import and accordingly an installation certificate will be furnished to D.GHS. after the expiry of said period of 30 days. 7. Certified that the Institution has not imported any equipment in the past under duty exemption scheme has never obtained any CUSTOM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE. 8. Certified that the Hospital has no appropriate programme for its establishment. The necessary project report is enclosed. 9. Certified that the Hospital has sufficient funds and other resources to establish itself. 10. Certified that the Hospital would be in a position to start functioning within a period of two years. 11. Certified that the Hospital, when starts functioning would be relatable to a hospital covered under category 2 of the table of the notification No. 64 Cus/88 dated 1.3.88. The applicant hospital falls in category in terms of above. 12. Certified that the institution will comply with the conditions on import ' of equipment under CUSTOM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE against notification No. 64 cus/88 dated 1.3.88 as prescribed under the said notification and by DGHS. In the event of any breach of the said conditions it would be liable to pay duty on the concerned equipment. 3. The above mentioned application along with necessary certificates was subsequently forwarded by Director Medical and Health Department Govt, of Rajasthan, Jaipur to Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department Govt, of Rajasthan Jaipur for further processing of the same. Deputy Secretary to Govt. 3. The above mentioned application along with necessary certificates was subsequently forwarded by Director Medical and Health Department Govt, of Rajasthan, Jaipur to Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department Govt, of Rajasthan Jaipur for further processing of the same. Deputy Secretary to Govt. Medical and Health Services Jaipur, in turn, forwarded the said application alongwith supporting document to DGHS New Delhi for doing further needful. 4. The unknown officials of DGHS New Delhi by abuse of their official position, by corrupt/illegal means, in order to cause undue pecuniary advantage to himself, Dr. L.C. Mathur, Shri C.R Mathur, said Research Institution and other persons issued CDEC in favour of Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre, Jaipur without proper scanning of project Report, Financial Viability of the Project, Audited Accounts/Balance Sheets, Man Power, infrastructure and documents relating to possession of land and approval for building from local authorities submitted by the party, issued said certificate on false pretences, in favour of party on 19.5.94 and they thereby cheated the Central Govt. 5. A team deputed for carrying out Spot Inspection found that "The applicant Dr. L.C. Mathur and Shri C.R Mathur applied for the Import of MRI machine for Installation at Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre Jaipur but it has been actually installed at Soni Nursing Home/Hospital contrary to the undertaking given by the applicant. Though, one room is purported to be leased out to the applicant in said Soni Nursing Hospital but the machine is actually being used by Dr. B.R Soni, prima facie it is evident that the machine was obtained on misrepresentation of facts. The applicant was never present in the institution which infact is looked after by one Shri Harish Mathur S/o Dr. L.C. Mathur working as Chief Engineer in Bridge Corporation Govt, of Rajasthan Jaipur who is not qualified Doctor. The machine had apparently handed over for a consideration or otherwise to Dr. B.R. Soni who is running a nursing home in the same premises. Thus, Laxmi Imaging and Research Centre was formally set up as a cover for getting duty free Import of said MRI Machine. The Inspection team also brought out that no indoor treatment facility has at all been set up by Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre and such facilities are only provided by Soni Nursing Home. Infact the MRI machine is being managed and utilised by the Soni Nursing Home. The Inspection team also brought out that no indoor treatment facility has at all been set up by Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre and such facilities are only provided by Soni Nursing Home. Infact the MRI machine is being managed and utilised by the Soni Nursing Home. The team also found that the lease entered into by said party with Dr. B.R. Soni has given a definite space for the purpose of installing and running the MRI machine. As per lease, the premises was not to be used for any other work except the working of MRI machine and such related facility. It is evident that, no provision has made in this lease for setting up of any beds or indoor treatment facility The spot inspection carried out by the team also revealed that said MRI machine was being utilised in one room of the Soni Nursing Home and was stated to be looked after by Shri Harish Chandra Mathur S/o Dr. L.C. Mathur. (Underlined by the Court) 6. In April 1997, a team consisting of two Senior intelligence officer of DGAE was deputed for spot enquiries in the case of Soni Hospitals Pvt, Ltd. Jaipur. The team found that the said MRI machine is installed in a separate room in the basement of the building while its monitor is installed in the adjacent room, separated by a glass screen wherein the monitor of one MRI machine was also, found and Dr. Deen Dayal (Radiologist) who was present in the room confirmed it. The MRI machine was installed in the opposite room belonging to Laxmi MRI Centre, it was informed by Dr. Soni that MRf was imported in 1993-94 by Laxmi Imaging and Medicai Research Centre under CUSTOM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE which is a partnership firm of Dr. L.C. Mathur and Shri C.P. Mathur. The room was given on rent by Soni Hospital. It was further informed that Advocate's notice dated 16.1.96 to Shri L.C. Mathur for recovery of electricity charges and rent showing the reference of an agreement dated 16.5.94 was brought to the notice of the visiting team. Dr. Soni further informed the team that key of said room is lying with the firm. 7. Thus Dr. It was further informed that Advocate's notice dated 16.1.96 to Shri L.C. Mathur for recovery of electricity charges and rent showing the reference of an agreement dated 16.5.94 was brought to the notice of the visiting team. Dr. Soni further informed the team that key of said room is lying with the firm. 7. Thus Dr. L.C. Mathur and Shri C.R Mathur in criminal conspiracy with some unknown DGHS Officials New Delhi cheated the Central Government by way of procuring CUSTUM DUTY EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE on misrepresentation of facts in order to import of MRi machine. In furtherance to said criminal conspiracy, Dr. L.C. Mathur and Shri C.P. Mathur passed on the custom duty free MRI machine to Dr. B.R. Soni in order to cause undue pecuniary advantage to both the parties. As per 12 point undertaking given by the party to the authorities concerned for procuring the said certificate they were supposed to provide free treatment on an average to atleast 40% of all their out door patients and similarly after setting up of 30 beds with indoor treatment facility, 10% beds were to be reserved for giving treatment as free to the persons belonging to families having income of less than Rs. 500 per month but the party fraudulently failed to comply with these conditions as also other conditions and they thereby cheated the Government of India to the tune of Rupees equivalent to custom duty waived off on Import of said MRI machine and its spare parts. 8. The aforesaid acts of Shri L.C. Mathur, Shri C.R Mathur, Dr. B.R. Soni, some unknown DGHS officials, M/s Laxmi Imaging and Medical Research Centre and Soni Nursing Home constitute commission of an offences punishable under section 120-B read with 420. 467 & 468 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences under section 420, 467, 468 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. 9. Hence, a Regular case is registered against the above named accused persons and entrusted to Sh. H.M. Gupta, Dy. Supdt. of Police, SPE; CBI; Jaipur for investigation. 10. From the reading of the FIR it was mentioned that the owner firm M/s Laxmi Imagine & Medical Research Centre (here-in-after called as the firm) was not looking after the machine, but the petitioner Harish Mathur son of Dr. H.M. Gupta, Dy. Supdt. of Police, SPE; CBI; Jaipur for investigation. 10. From the reading of the FIR it was mentioned that the owner firm M/s Laxmi Imagine & Medical Research Centre (here-in-after called as the firm) was not looking after the machine, but the petitioner Harish Mathur son of Dr. L.C. Mathur, an Engineer in the Bridge Corporation of the Government of Rajasthan was looking after the management of the machine. It is also mentioned that the machine had apparently been handed over for consideration or otherwise to Dr. B.R. Soni who was running a Nursing Home in the same premises and that the firm was formerly put up as a cover for getting the duty free import of the said machine. The machine was imported by M/s Laxmi Imagine and Medical Research Centre in the year 1993-94 under custom duty exemption certificate, which firm was a partnership of Dr. C.M. Mathur and C.P. Mathur. It was installed in a room given on rent by Soni Hospital. It was also mentioned in the FIR that Shri L.C. Mathur and Shri C.R Mathur in criminal conspiracy with some unknown officials of the office of the Directorate General Health Services, New Delhi had cheated the Central Government on misrepresentation of facts. The only part which is said to have been played by the petitioner as alleged is that he was looking after the machine installed in the premises of the hospital of Dr. B.R. Soni. The crux of the allegations was that the firm had saved custom duty of Rs. 60 lacs in import of the machine and thus had defrauded the Central Government. It was also mentioned in the challan papers that the said firm should have taken the permission from the Central Government before installing the machine in private Nursing Home of Dr. Soni or before giving the management of the machine to any other person. 11. It is also mentioned in the challan papers that it was the duty of Dr. Soni to render certain free of charge service to the patients as per his undertaking given to the State Government which he had not complied with. Soni or before giving the management of the machine to any other person. 11. It is also mentioned in the challan papers that it was the duty of Dr. Soni to render certain free of charge service to the patients as per his undertaking given to the State Government which he had not complied with. It is mentioned in the challan paper that from March 1994 to October 1994, the machine was being run by the firm itself through its partner Shri L.C. Mathur and from November 1994 to June 1995 the machine was being managed by Dr. Soni. 12. The petitioner might have been taking certain steps in preparing the application form of his father who was a partner of the firm, or even might have signed certain papers on behalf of his father. The father of the petitioner as a partner of the firm does own the responsibility of submitting the papers to the Ministry of Health, either of the state or of the Central Government, for permission to import the custom free machinery under the policy. The only allegation against the petitioner is that while the machine was installed, the petitioner was also managing the machine. It is not denied that the petitioner at the time was Superintending Engineer in the Rajasthan Government. From the reading of the complete record of the trial court it is clear that none of the ingredients of Section 420, 467 or 468 has been made out against the petitioner. 13. In M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others AIR 1988 SC 128 , it was held that summoning the accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof, and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof, and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 of the Code or Art. 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. 14. In the case of Pepsi Foods (supra), the appellant had given their brand name to 'Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd.' for bottling the beverages 'Lehar Pepsi' and the complaint did not show what was the role of the appellants in the manufacture of the beverage which was said to be adulterated nor, there was averment as to how the complainant could say so and also if the appellants manufactured the alleged bottle or its contents and the preliminary evidence on which the respondent relied in issuing summon to the appellants also does not show as to how it could be said that the appellants are manufacturers of either the bottle or the beverage or both and also there was nothing on record to show if the applicants held the licence for the manufacture of the offending beverages; the complaint and preliminary evidence recorded makes out no cause against appellant accused and, therefore, the order of the High Court refusing to quash complaint on ground that there was sufficient ground for proceedings against accused and that alternative remedy was available under the Code would not be proper. It was observed as under- The questions which arise for consideration are if in the circumstances of the case, the appellants rightly approached the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and if so, was the High Court justified in refusing to grant any relief to the appellants because of the view which it took of the law and the facts of the case. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code.' 'It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code.' 'It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 , this Court examined the extraordinary power under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any High Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guideline is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.' 'Summoning of an accused in criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is primafacie committed by all or any of the accused.' 'If we now refer to the facts of the case before us, it is clear to us that not only that allegation against the appellant make out any case for an offence under section 7 of the Act and also that there is no basis for the complainant to make such allegations. The allegations in the complaint merely show that the appellants have given their brand name to 'Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd.' for bottling the beverage 'Lehar Pepsi'. The complainant does not show what is the role of the appellants in the manufacture of the beverage which is said to be adulterated. The only allegation is that the appellants are the manufacturer of bottle. There is no averment as to how the complainant could say so and also if the appellants manufactured the alleged bottle or its contents. His sole information is from A.K. Jain who is impleaded as accused No. 3. The preliminary evidence on which the 1st respondent relied in issuing summon to the appellants also does not show as to how it could be said that the appellants are manufacturers of either the bottle or the beverage or both.' 'It is no comfortable thought for the appellants to be told that they could appear before the Court which is at a far off place in the Ghazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seek their release on bail and then to either move are application under section 245(2) of the code or to face trial when the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded makes out no case against them. It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the Courts and the High Court should not have shed away in exercising its jurisdiction. Provisions of Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the Courts and the High Court should not have shed away in exercising its jurisdiction. Provisions of Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. In our view, High Court should not have adopted such a rigid approach which certainly has led to miscarriage of justice in the case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the High Court should have exercised it." 15. In the case of Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chachani & anor. 1998(6) Supreme 394 , where the High Court was of the opinion that the allegations having been made that shares have been transferred on the basis of forged and fabiicated signature, a prima facie case has been made out and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to quash the order of cognizance in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rejecting the prayer of the appellants, the Supreme Court after going through the complaint together with the statements made by the complainant and the two other witnesses made on oath before the Magistrate had held as under- 'We are clearly of the opinion that the necessary ingredients of any of the offence have not been made out so far as the appellants are concerned. The petition of complaint is a vague one and excepting the said allegation that the shares of the complainant have been transferred on the forged signatures, nothing further has been stated and there is not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these appellants are involved in the so-called allegation of forgery. The statement of the complainant on oath as well as his witnesses do not improve the position in any manner, and therefore, in our considered opinion even if the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of complainant and his witnesses are taken on their face value, the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made cut. This being the position the impugned order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.2.1996 so far as it relates the appellants are concerned cannot be sustained and the High Court also committed error in not invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code in the aforesaid premise, the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 5.2.96 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand quashed.' 16. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar 1996 Cr.LR (SC) 497 , wherein the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings on identical charges. After such exoneration proceedings initiated u/s. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge. It was observed as under- 'At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He aiso accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings arid in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On those premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For it the charge which is identical proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.' 'At the risk of repetition, we may state that the charge had not been proved and on that basis the appellant was cleared of departmental enquiry. In this connection, we may also usefully cite a decision of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhjay Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. This Court after considering almost all earlier decisions has given guidelines relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.RC. for quashing an FiR or complaint. v. Bhjay Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. This Court after considering almost all earlier decisions has given guidelines relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.RC. for quashing an FiR or complaint. This Court observed as follows- "In the back drop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power u/Art. 226 of the inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though is may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.' (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code.' (5) 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.' 'Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the. criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of the case, criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of the case, criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27.3.1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and a giving consequential reliefs.' 17. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the facts of the case and in view of principles as laid down in Clause (1), (4) and (5) in the case of PS. Rajya v. State of Bihar , no case is made out against the petitioner. 18. In the case of Sati Kanta Guha v. State of West Bengal - reported in 1977 Criminal Law Journal 1644 , the Calcutta High Court has held as under- Section 227 read with section 228 of the Cr.PC. is a precious safeguard so to express, a pre-battle protection' conferred by Parliament in its wisdom upon accused persons charge-sheeted by the Police for trial in a Court of sessions without collecting and collating materials sufficient to warrant a full-fledged trial. This provision in law is calculated to eliminate further harassment to the accused persons when the evidentiary materials gathered after a prolonged and thorough investigation of the occurrence fall short of minimum legal requirement. Therefore, this prevision of law cannot be reduced into a dead letter and accused persons made to under go the rigour of futile trial, where such a trial on materials available is palpably not warranted against them.' 19. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy reported in AIR 1977 (SC) 1489 , it was observed that from Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has power to discharge the accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties, he comes to the conclusion, for the reasons to be recorded, that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the High Court in the exercise of wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.PC. is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. It was further held that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Courts possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonable to be possible. In said case, one of the accused was discharged and the High Court was held to be justified in holding that for meeting ends of justice, proceedings against rest of the accused are to be quashed as well. 20. In yet another case reported in 1996 Cr.LR (SC) 505 Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration , the Supreme Court on the complaint by wife against husband on the allegation that he committed sexual assault on her three years old daughter and relations between husband and wife were strained, has held that if trial is allowed to continue, it would result into traumatic impact on the child and the accused was discharged. 21. In the case of Ishwar Das Darjee v. State of Sikkim reported in 1998 Criminal Law Journal 4447 , it was held by the Sikkim High Court that charge must contain time, place, person and circumstances of the offence which give the accused an idea of the case which he has to meet. It was held that there should be no doubt left in the mind of the accused as to what is the case against him and what allegation he has to meet. 22. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported in AIR 1988 (SC) 709 , the Supreme Court has held as under: The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed. The test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special feature which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special feature which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. A case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. There would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. In the instant case, a complaint was filed for offences punishable under Ss. 406, 467 read with Ss. 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code. The property was trust property and one of the trustees was member of the settlor's family. The criminal proceedings were quashed by High Court in respect of two persons but they were allowed to be continued against the rest. It was held that the case in question was one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offences are wanting. Therefore, the criminal proceeding had to be quashed.' 23. In the case of State of U.P v. R.K. Srivastava reported in AIR 1989 SC 2222 , the Supreme Court has held that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. It was further observed that in the instant case two employees of the State Bank of India and one of its clients holding current Account were charged under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was further observed that in the instant case two employees of the State Bank of India and one of its clients holding current Account were charged under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was manifestly clear from the allegations in the FIR that the accused bank employees had not intention whatsoever to make any wrongful gain or to make any wrongful loss to the Bank in accepting certain cheques. The allegations made either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet did not show that the bank employees or the client had acted dishonestly, that is to say, acted with a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss nor did the allegations constituted any offence of cheating or forgery. At the most there was some delay in making relevant entries. Since, the FIR did not contain any definite accusation, it amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. The criminal proceedings were, therefore, liable to be quashed in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 24. In view of the above-said facts, discussion and the law laid down, in my opinion none of the ingredients of the offence are made out against the petitioner, nor there is any evidence what-so-ever on record for taking cognizance against the petitioner and as such in my opinion the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue and taking of the cognizance viz. a viz. the petitioner Harish Chandra Mathur in case No. 10/1998 is to be quashed. 25. Section 415, 420, 465, 464, 467 and 468 IPC are reproduced as under- 415. Cheating-Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. 420. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 463. Forgery-Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 464. Making a false document-A person is said to make a false First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 467-Forgery of valuable security, will etc. 467-Forgery of valuable security, will etc. -Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest, or dividends thereon or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 468-Forgery for purpose of cheating-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and, shall also be liable to fine.' 26. Cheating has been defined as deceiving any person, fraudulently or dis-honestly inducing such person so deceived to deliver any property to any person etc. etc. It has not been brought on record that the Central Government was deceived by Dr. B.R. Soni in renting out the premises on lease to the firm or that Harish Chandra Mathur had deceived the Central Government in looking into the administration of machine after installation even if such allegations are assumed to be true. 27. Forgery has been defined for making any false document or part of document which intended to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to enter into any express or implied contract with the intent to commit fraud. 28. Section 467 relates to the forgery of document purporting to be a valuable security or will or an authority to adopt a son on which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security. 29. Section 467 relates to the committing of forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. 30. 29. Section 467 relates to the committing of forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. 30. After going through the paper put up by the prosecution, there is no evidence what-so-ever on the record to show that the petitioner had forged any document or valuable security with the intention of cheating, rather there is no allegation of cheating or of forgery against the petitioner. The firm had submitted certain papers along with all the documents for issuance of the certificate for import of the aforesaid scanning machine under the excise duty exemption; relying on such document and the inspection reports made by the department, the excise duty was exempted which otherwise would have paid by the firm. The firm had installed the machine in the hospital named Soni Hospital after executing a lease-deed for a part premise in the said hospital, initially on rent and later on even on profit sharing basis with Dr. Soni. 31. Similar is the case of Harish Chandra Mathur. It is stated that he had .been signing the papers on behalf of one of the partner i.e. his father. The father does admit that he had given authority to his son to sign the papers, but it is the father, a partner of the firm, who is the importer of the machine and not the petitioner Harish Chandra Mathur. In my opinion, no evidence what-so-ever had been' put up before the court wherein Dr. Soni or Mr. Mathur are connected for any of the offence of conspiracy or any other offence. Mr. H.C. Mathur is said to have been supervising the machine after installation and even it be so it cannot be said that he had committed any offence as alleged. The allegations are too vague and non-existent. 32. For the reasons mentioned above, in view of the facts and the law as laid down and as discussed, I have no hesitation to say that the criminal proceedings in such FIR against the petitioner cannot be sustained and are to be quashed and, therefore, the proceedings viz. a viz. the petitioner in case No. 10/98 are quashed. The record be sent to the trial court. 33. Anything said above shall not be construed to mean to have been said for or against the remaining accused against whom the proceedings are pending. 34. With the above-said observations, the misc. a viz. the petitioner in case No. 10/98 are quashed. The record be sent to the trial court. 33. Anything said above shall not be construed to mean to have been said for or against the remaining accused against whom the proceedings are pending. 34. With the above-said observations, the misc. petition is allowed. No costs.Petition allowed. *******