M. PAPANNA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, Nalinikanta muduli, brought this Criminal Misc. case under Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of F. I. R. No. 61 of 2000 lodged by Shri Krupasindhu Balabantaray, Inspector, vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar. ( 2 ) BHUBANESWAR Vigilance P. S. Case No. 61 of 2000 was registered on the information embodied in F. I. R. No. 61/2000. Accusation fastened to the petitioner as per impugned f. I. R. may be delineated as below: the petitioner happens to be one of the trustees of Nabapravat Trust at bhubaneswar. Nilachal Polytechnic and nilachal Institute of Computer Science are run by the said Trust. The petitioner has obtained special class and super class contractor's license fraudulently. He had a conspiracy with Susanta Kumar Kar, Branch manager of O. S. F. C. Branch No. 1, bhubaneswar. He handed over Industrial estate consisting of land more than half an acre along with two IDCO sheds etc. comprising plot No. B-3 and B-8 of Mancheswar industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar to the petitioner in undue haste on 7-7-1997 at a considerable lower price of Rs. 20,000,00/- with down payment of Rs. 5 lakhs and the balance of Rs. 15 lakhs was treated as loan components particularly with the security of the same land and sheds on condition that in case of diversification of the products of sale, the buyer has to take written approval of loan lending institution. As such, the buyer would continue the same products of M/s. Utkal Ceramics until further clearance from O. S. F. C. , IDCO and other authorities. The petitioner swore an affidavit before Shri P. M. Sundarray Notary Public, bhubaneswar on 4-7-1997 declaring his educational Qualification as Civil (B. E. ). One bichitrananda Muduli happens to be petitioner's father. Bhubaneswarvigilance P. S. Case No. 25/2000 was initially registered against him on the accusation that he possessed disproportionate assets to his known source of income as Chief Engineer in Rural works Department of the State Government. He is having a three storied building at 67- sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that petitioner Nalinikanta Muduli is not a Degree engineer but he could manage to get m/s. Berina Marine Pvt. Ltd. registered as fabrication Unit with DIC, Bhubaneswar vice provisional Registration Certificate No. 151510528 dated 19-11-1998 and impersonated himself as Engineer. He is having a three storied building at 67- sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that petitioner Nalinikanta Muduli is not a Degree engineer but he could manage to get m/s. Berina Marine Pvt. Ltd. registered as fabrication Unit with DIC, Bhubaneswar vice provisional Registration Certificate No. 151510528 dated 19-11-1998 and impersonated himself as Engineer. He insisted idco to transfer the title of land and sheds. Saroj Kumar Sahoo happens to be Managing trustee-cum-Secretary of the Trust. He is working as Principal of the aforesaid technical institutions. It is further alleged that there is no study atmosphere nor infrastructure nor adequate apparatus in those Institutions for imparting technical education to the students from whom they must have collected lakhs of rupees for imparting such education. The petitioner and his associates have heavily bribed the officials and managed to get affiliation for the said technical institutions. They have also availed of lakhs of rupees and financial assistance fraudulently from the Government in the guise of imparting technical education to O. B. C. candidates. The I. O. after completing investigation laid charge sheet against the present petitioner as well as Saroj Kumar Sahoo, principal of the technical institutions and susanta Kumar Kar, Branch Manager o. S. F. C. Bhubaneswar-1 for commission of cognizable offences under Section 120-B/ 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. ( 3 ) APPEARING for petitioner, his counsel, sri S. C. Parija contended in one sentence that even if averments of Impugned FIR are accepted to be true no cognizable offence either under Prevention of Corruption Act or Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. This contention of Sri Parija has been refuted by Sri d. K. Mohapatra, appearing for Vigilance organisation. According to him in view of conspiracy hatched between the petitioner and officials of O. S. F. C. valuable assets of the Corporation have been transferred to m/s. Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. for Rupees 20,00,000/- with down payment of Rupees 5,00,000/- and the balance of Rupees 15,00,000/- has been treated as loan. This, according to him, amounts to conspiracy of the petitioner with the accused persons. ( 4 ) SECTION 482 Cr. This, according to him, amounts to conspiracy of the petitioner with the accused persons. ( 4 ) SECTION 482 Cr. P. C. says nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court has laid down the law on the subject. In the light of the said law the present petition under Section 482 cr. P. C. can be adjudicated. Provisions of section 482 Cr. P. C. empower the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of the Court in order that ends of justice can be secured. The High Court can exercise such inherent powers only in appropriate cases. It amounts to abuse of the process of any Court, if without prima facie case having been made out, a person is summoned to face trial in a criminal proceeding. ( 6 ) THE view taken in the case of State of u. P. through C. B. I, for S. P. E. , Lucknow v. R. K. Srivastava, AIR 1989 SC 2222 : (1989 cri LJ 2301), shows that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute any offence, the criminal proceedings constituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. Their Lordships have also laid down the law in the case of Mrs. Dhana lakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 sc 494 : (1990 Cri LJ 320 ). In the above case, it is held that to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should quash the proceeding but there should be Justification of interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. In the above case, it is held that to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should quash the proceeding but there should be Justification of interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. In the case of Smt. Chand dhawan v. Jawaharlal, AIR 1999 SC 1379 : (1992 Cri LJ 1956), it is held that the High court can exercise its Inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegation made in the complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case wherein such power should be exercised. Therefore, it is clear from the rulings cited above that a criminal proceedings against an accused can be quashed in the initial stage only when on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. The test for quashing of criminal proceeding is that taking the allegations in the complaint as they are, without adding or substracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be Justified in quashing the proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. It is further clear from the settled position of law that for quashing an FIR the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. ( 7 ) WHETHER or not prima facie case either under IPC or P. C. Act Is made out against the petitioner is to be seen from the averments made in the FIR. Impugned FIR discloses that valuable assets of O. S. F. C. were transferred to M/s. Zerina Marine (P) ltd. for Rs. 20,00,000/- with down payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been treated as loan. This fact has not been disputed by Advocate Shri parija for the petitioner. Impugned FIR discloses that valuable assets of O. S. F. C. were transferred to M/s. Zerina Marine (P) ltd. for Rs. 20,00,000/- with down payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been treated as loan. This fact has not been disputed by Advocate Shri parija for the petitioner. The pertinent question is whether out of conspiracy hatched between the petitioner and officials of o. S. F. C. valuable assets of the Corporation have been transferred to Zerina Marine (P) ltd. at considerably lower price. Criminal conspiracy is punishable under Section 120- b IPC. In the present case, it is expedient and desirable to see if the allegation made in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety constitute offence of criminal conspiracy or any offence. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, I feel it desirable to peruse the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. recorded by the I. O. , and the accompanying documents to see if they disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. A perusal of the statement of one such witness Bhuban Mohan maharana, Branch Manager, O. S. F. C. Branch-I, Bhubaneswar indicates that assets of Utkal Ceramic consisting of two sheds on Plot No. B/3 and B/8 in Mancheswar industrial Estate along with the plant, machinery and other equipments were seized by Susanta Kumar Kar, the then Branch manager of O. S. F. C. Branch No. I under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation act. Liability of M/s. Utkal Ceramic was to the extent of Rs. 2,78,30,416/- as on 30-6-1996. It is also clear from the statement of Susanta Kumar Kar that for a consideration of Rs. 20. 00. 000/- industrial unit and its assets were sold to M/s. Zarina Marine pvt. Ltd. by adopting official procedure pursuant to sale letter No. 442 dated 27-6-1997 which does not in any manner amount to conspiracy made between the petitioner and the Branch Manager. I have also gone through the statement of one Prabhat ranjan Mohapatra made to the I. O. under section 161 Cr. P. C. and I am fully convinced that industrial assets of M/s. Utkal Ceramic were put to auction. Prior to that in daily newspapers namely The Prajatantra on 16-3-1997 and The Samaj on 17-3-1997 this fact was advertised. I have also gone through the statement of one Prabhat ranjan Mohapatra made to the I. O. under section 161 Cr. P. C. and I am fully convinced that industrial assets of M/s. Utkal Ceramic were put to auction. Prior to that in daily newspapers namely The Prajatantra on 16-3-1997 and The Samaj on 17-3-1997 this fact was advertised. It is also clear from his statement that the Deputy Manager Technical concerned made valuation of the industiral assets for Rs. 20. 16 lakhs. Pursuant to the said advertisement, a proposal for disposal of the industrial assets was placed on 27-3-1997 in the 198th meeting of Disposal-cum-Default Advisory Committee consisting of four members such as Shri i. Srinivasan, I. A. S. , Chairman Shri G. C. Dash, Executive Director, Shri N. K. Pasayat and Shri P. K. Swain, Director. It is further clear from the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. made by Joint General manager, Prabhat Ranjan Mohapatra that one A. K. Giridhar on behalf of one Budhiraj gave an offer of Rs. 14. 40 lakhs for purchase of the industrial unit and its assets. Because of the offer price being low, the sale was deferred. On 6-6-1997 another advertisement was made. This time, present petitioner on behalf of M/s. Zarina Marine Pvt. Ltd. offered to purchase the assets by offering rs. 17,00,000/ -. But ultimately the price of the aforesaid assets was fixed at Rupees 20,00,000/- with down payment of Rupees 5,00,000/- with the consent and approval of the Disposal-cum-Default Advisory committee. Accordingly, down payment of rs. 5,00,000/- was received and Rupees 15,00,000/- was allowed to be treated as loan component by the Committee. I am also convinced from his statement that the petitioner never applied to the O. S. F. C. seeking permission for diversification of the products of the original loanee M/s. Utkal Ceramies. ( 8 ) STATEMENTS of other witnesses made to the I. O. during investigation of the case also indicate that O. S. F. C. had financed U/s. Utkal Ceramic who defaulted in payment of the dues for which the unit was taken over by O. S. F. C. and put to auction as stated above. ( 8 ) STATEMENTS of other witnesses made to the I. O. during investigation of the case also indicate that O. S. F. C. had financed U/s. Utkal Ceramic who defaulted in payment of the dues for which the unit was taken over by O. S. F. C. and put to auction as stated above. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I fail to notice any such conspiracy alleged to have been hatched up between the petitioner and official of o. S. F. C. in purchasing the unit at a price lower than the market value. ( 10 ) IN such a view of the matter, allegation of conspiracy as fastened to the petitioner does not merit any consideration even at this stage particularly when there are no primafacie materials to proceed against the petitioner on the false allegations of the aforesaid conspiracy. In my opinion, the petitioner has not played any role in the transaction referred to above for which he cannot be held liable either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 11 ) IT is also alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence of cheating by misrepresentation and also forged certain documents. Having gone through the material allegations made by the prosecuting agency in the F. I. R. , I am convinced that the petitioner has not committed any offence of cheating as contemplated under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code pre-supposes existence of direct connection between false representation and delivery of property of doing something by the person deceived. In the instant case, act or omission complained of should cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the person or property. Bounden duty of the prosecution is to prove that he has not only cheated someone but also by doing so he dishonestly induced the said person, who has been cheated to deliver the said property etc. There must be deception which must precede the fraudulent or dishonest inducement. Furthermore, essential ingredients of offence under Section 468 of indian Penal Code must show that the document in question is a forged one. That apart the prosecution must prove that the accused has forged the document and in forging the same he had the intention that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Furthermore, essential ingredients of offence under Section 468 of indian Penal Code must show that the document in question is a forged one. That apart the prosecution must prove that the accused has forged the document and in forging the same he had the intention that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. In the case at hand, when there is no material on record to show commission of offence either under section 468 of Indian Penal Code or under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. I must hold that the prosecution has no prima facie case under the above Sections of law to proceed against him. ( 12 ) A perusal of all the materials discussed above shows that no prima facie case is also said to have been made out against the petitioner under Section 120-B of the indian Penal Code. In the case of B. H. Narsimha Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1996 SC 64 : (1995 Cri LJ 4181), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have taken a view that before a person can be convicted constructively with the add of section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code the requirement of Section 120-A of Indian Penal code, denning criminal conspiracy would have to be met. Section 120-A says that when two or more persons agreed to do or caused to be done i) an illegal act or ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more party to such agreement in pursuance thereof. In the present case, since there is no prima facie case of criminal conspiracy made out against the petitioner, the allegation fastened to him at this stage if allowed to stand against him, it will pave the way for miscarriage of justice to be done against him. ( 13 ) THE most serious allegation against petitioner is that he has obtained a special class and super class contractor's licence fraudulently. The specific allegation is that he has obtained the said contractor's licence as a Graduate Engineer and that too without any previous work experience. ( 13 ) THE most serious allegation against petitioner is that he has obtained a special class and super class contractor's licence fraudulently. The specific allegation is that he has obtained the said contractor's licence as a Graduate Engineer and that too without any previous work experience. I have gone through the papers submitted by the prosecuting agency and I am fully convinced that the petitioner has never taken individually any contractor's licence. By now, it is clear that there is a Company Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. by name as indicated above. It is a legal entity. Under the Companies Act it came into being in 1995. This Construction company was in fact issued with special class contractor's licence by the Committee of Chief Engineers in March, 1996 on payment of Rs. 30,000/- towards licence fee and rs. 1,00,000/- worth N. S. Cs. as per Government circular Code 7/96/5337 dated 22-7-1996. As per OPWD Code the above construction Company applied for licence for which no previous experience as such was required. It is not disputed that even 'a' class and Special Class Contractors are not required to be Graduate Engineers. Even many of such Special Class or Super Class contractors might not have gone to the College but they are allowed to get themselves as a Special or Super Class Contractors. From this point of view the allegation that the petitioner has got special class licence as Graduate Engineer cannot be accepted. Further more, the allegation that Shri karunakar Mohanty issued one work experience certificate to the petitioner who on the basis of said certificate got special class licence seems to be vague and baseless. It is necessary that an Engineer has to undergo some sort of practical training in the actual field. Civil Engineers get acquainted with work process by visiting different work sites for getting practical knowledge. No doubt a testimonial showing that the petitioner was supervising some of his works without any salary was issued to him by Shri karunakar Mohanty but, in fact, this testimonial was never required for any purpose from a private individual. When the Construction company, Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. was actually issued special class contractor's licence in 3/96 and was upgraded to super class contractor in 9/97 subsequently after executing some works worth of Rs. 3. 23 crores, question of issuing super class licence to the petitioner does not arise. When the Construction company, Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. was actually issued special class contractor's licence in 3/96 and was upgraded to super class contractor in 9/97 subsequently after executing some works worth of Rs. 3. 23 crores, question of issuing super class licence to the petitioner does not arise. For all these reasons, the allegation that the petitioner was issued special class contractor's licence directly without any work experience or with work experience certificate furnished by Karunakar Mohanty, Super class contractor is false and baseless. Special class contractor's licence 3/96 issued to Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. was upgraded to special class category on payment of required fee. In the present case, the licence issued in the name of Construction Company was upgraded and renewed in the Committee of Chief Engineers. No doubt petitioner's father B. N. Muduli was a Member of the said Committee. When the said Committee which renewed his licence, petitioner's father had no role to play. As a matter of fact, such renewal of licence in every three years is an automatic routine process. In fact, the licence in question was granted as a matter of course in favour of the Construction company. As such, the allegation that petitioner's father biased the Committee of chief Engineers consisting of seven other chief Engineers cannot be believed at all. ( 14 ) I have gone through the facts of the case. I have also gone through the case laws on the subject and having been satisfied with the legal position on the subject, I am of the considered view that though the proceeding is at a preliminary stage it should not be allowed to continue against an innocent person as it amounts to abuse of process of court. As such, to prevent such abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of Justice, i am inclined to exercise my judicial discretion in quashing the F. I. R. and the proceedings in its entirety as the information on its face value and if accepted in its entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. ( 15 ) IN the result, the Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure is allowed. ( 15 ) IN the result, the Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure is allowed. F. I. R. No. 61/2000 basing on which Bhubaneswar Vigilance P. S. Case No. 61/2000 was registered and the corresponding Criminal proceeding in its entirety now pending against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Application allowed.