Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Yogender Kumar Gupta, Chartered Accountant for quashing the complaint No. 4- T/87 titled as "Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Amritsar v. P.C. Aggarwal and others" pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate. Ist Class, Patiala under Sections 120-B/420/471/1468 IPC read with Section 5 of the Import & Export Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter after to as `Act). Petitioner has further prayed that summoning order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate. Ist Class, Patiala and order dated 23.7.1992 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the petitioners application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and order dated 13.8.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner be also quashed. 2. The facts of the case are that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate on the allegations that B.K. Mahadevan, partner of M/s. B.R. Krishanair and sons, 16-A, Mahal 4th Street, Madurai executed a General power of attorney on 24.1.1984 in favour of Prem Shankar Sharma of Delhi for opening a branch office of the firm anywhere in India and also to import the goods directly or by appointing agents and to take delivery of the goods from various persons and authorities and to make and remit payments for the import and clearance of the goods. Similarly, B.K. Mahadevan executed another general power of attorney in favour of N. Dalal r/o Delhi to nominate, constitute and appoint with regard to their advance licence No. P/W/3072082 dated 31.5.1984 for Rs. 15,30,000/- for export of 1,53,000 meters of fabric on the basis of export order of some foreign concern. On the basis of general power of attorney executed in favour of Prem Shankar Sharma, he at the instance of P.C. Aggarwal floated branch office of M/s B.R. Krishanair and sons, Madurai at 165, Rani Ka Bhag, Amritsar. No books of accounts and records of this Firm were maintained, rather it was floated on the paper itself. This was used as contact address to receive the letters from the government offices and then to redirect them to P.C. Aggarwal in Delhi. It was further alleged that on 27.4.1984, an application on behalf of B.R. Krishnaier and sons, Amritsar for grant of advance import licence was submitted in the office of Dy. This was used as contact address to receive the letters from the government offices and then to redirect them to P.C. Aggarwal in Delhi. It was further alleged that on 27.4.1984, an application on behalf of B.R. Krishnaier and sons, Amritsar for grant of advance import licence was submitted in the office of Dy. Chief Controller, Imports and Exports alongwith relevant enclosures such as forms of application for advance licence under the Duty Exemption scheme, Treasury/Sub. Licence challan, photocopy of export order of Admn. Snooker Inc. Canada, Chartered accountants certificate. photocopy of export house certificate, registration-cum-membership certificate of AEPC and HEPC and photocopy of general power of attorney. The advance import licence No. P/W/3073082 dated 31.5.1984 was despatched from the office of Dy. CCI&E Amritsar by registered post to the Firm. It was further alleged that P.C. Aggarwal, accused alongwith Ram Prasad Aggarwal, Prem Shankar Sharma, Rajnish Mallick, V.K. Gupta, N. Dalal and V.K. Gupta has entered into criminal conspiracy during the year 1983-84 at Delhi, Amritsar in the name of the non-existing firm, M/s. B.R. Krishanier and sons, 165 Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar, P.C. Aggarwal in connivance of B.K. Mahadevan of M/s. B.R. Krishanier and sons got the general power of attorney of the Firm executed in favour of accused from Prem Shankar Sharma. He also managed to get the branch of the said firm opened at Amritsar and got licensed issued and material imported through M/s Anand Corporation. Ram Parsad Aggarwal, Prem Shankar Sharma, V.K. Gupta, N. Dalal and Y.K. Gupta were the employees of P.C. Aggarwal. The premises 165-A Rani Ka Bagh Amritsar and E-12, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi were the rented premises which were taken for a few months to make them as contract address and the same have been closed now. V.K. Gupta was instrumental and he negotiated with accused B.K. Mahadevan for getting general power of attorney in favour of N. Dalal and also got the firm M/s. Jain Industries, a non-existing firm registered as S.S.I. Unit from the office of District Industries Centre, Sonepat and these accused-persons were able to get the advance import licence from office of Dy. Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar. 3. The allegations against the petitioner are that he issued a certificate showing fake inflated export figures without verifying the books of accounts. Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar. 3. The allegations against the petitioner are that he issued a certificate showing fake inflated export figures without verifying the books of accounts. The application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings before the Special Judicial Magistrate was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.1992. The petitioner filed revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.8.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner sought the quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings on the following grounds :- (1) That there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for committing any act of forgery, fraud or of any other type for obtaining advance import licence. (2) There is no oral or documentary evidence in support of the allegation that the petitioner issued C.A. certificate at the instance of accused P.C. Aggarwal without verifying the books of accounts or showing fake inflated export figures. (3) The application for the grant of advance import licence was submitted in the office of respondent alongwith the relevant documents and the said licence was not solely issued on the basis of C.A. certificate issued by the petitioner. 5. The respondent filed reply and raised preliminary objection that petitioner revision against the order dated 23.7.1992 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for dismissal of his application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The said revision petition was dismissed. Therefore, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not lie. The co-accused P.C. Aggarwal moved an application in this Court and the same was dismissed. On merit, it was pleaded that the petitioner has issued a bogus certificate, therefore, the proceedings were rightly initiated against him. 6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that Naresh Dalal, Prem Shankar Sharma, P.C. Aggarwal, V.K. Gupta, all accused have confessed their guilt before the trial court. He submitted that once, the co-accused above admitted their guilt before the trial Court that they have entered into a conspiracy and floated firms for import and export of goods, which were non-existing firms and petitioner has issued a fake certificate, then the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed. 7. On the other hand Mr. He submitted that once, the co-accused above admitted their guilt before the trial Court that they have entered into a conspiracy and floated firms for import and export of goods, which were non-existing firms and petitioner has issued a fake certificate, then the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed. 7. On the other hand Mr. Manoj Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the confession made by the co-accused cannot be binding on the petitioner. He submitted that complaint is not legally maintainable before the trial Court. He pointed out that the Firms-R.K. Krishnaier, Anand Corporation and Jain Industries have not been impleaded as party in the complaint. He contended that without impleading them as parties, the complaint is not legally maintainable. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The Firms floated by the accused are non-existing firms. A non-existing firm need not be impleaded as a party because they are not registered under any Companies Act. So without impleading a non-existing firm, it cannot be said that complaint is not legally maintainable. The co-accused have admitted their guilt that they have floated the firms, which are not in existence. The certificate issued by the petitioner is a bogus one. On this score also, the complaint cannot be quashed. Even if, it is taken that the confession made by the co-accused is not binding upon the petitioner, even then from the perusal of the petition and reply filed by the complainant, there are disputed questions of fact whether the firms, which were floated by the co-accused are in existence or whether the certificate issued by the petitioner was a bogus one. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.