M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition, by the accused, filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is for quashing the entire proceedings in CC No. 147/2000, on the file of the Special Court for economic Offences, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case against the accused for contravening of Sections 18 (2) r/w 18 (3) and 68 (1) of foreign Exchange Regulations Act, which is punishable under Section 56 (1) (i) of the said act, challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri Kiran S. Javali, the learned counsel on behalf of the accused, and Sri Vishwanath shendge, the learned Central Government. standing counsel on behalf of the Complainant. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. There were absolutely no grounds for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the case and issue process to the accused. The learned counsel also contends that the main grouse of the Complainant is that the accused has contravened the said provisions of law and on 30-3-2004, the Director of Enforcement directorate had imposed penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs against the accused and that order had been challenged by the accused before the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange, and the said order had been set aside and the appeal came to be allowed. The resultant position is that there is no imposition of fine of Rs. 6 lakhs against the accused. Such being the case there was no contravention of the said provisions of law. The learned counsel relies upon the following decisions in support of his contentions :1. 2002 (83) ECC 296 (Delhi); 2. 2003 (85) ECC 600 (Bombay); 3. 2003 (156) ELT 184 (Delhi ). Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decisions, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant strenuously contended that the material on record clearly goes to show that the proceedings impugned against the accused are legal and proper. Patently, there had been contravention of the said provisions of law by the accused and no grounds have been made out by the accused to quash the proceedings. Patently, there had been contravention of the said provisions of law by the accused and no grounds have been made out by the accused to quash the proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ( 5 ) THE Court has carefully perused the material on record and given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that a private complaint has been preferred by the complainant Enforcement Officer, enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange regulations Act), Government of India, against the four accused, in particular, contending that the accused had failed to realise the export proceeds amounting to US $ 17403. 70 and accordingly, the Special Director, enforcement Directorate, had passed an order on 30-3-1994 imposing penalty of rs. 6 lakhs against the accused and as such, the accused is stated to have contravened sections 18 (2) r/w 18 (3) and 68 (1) of Foreign exchange Regulations Act, which is punishable under Section 56 (1) (i) of the said act. The learned Magistrate on presentation of the complaint had taken cognizance of the case against the accused and had ordered for issue of process. This order is under challenge before this Court. ( 7 ) BY settled principle of law, it is clear that the inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. ( 8 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that, according to the accused, he had preferred an appeal against the order of the special Director, Enforcement Directorate. New Delhi before the Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange and on 8-5-2003 an order has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal and the order impugned has been set aside. From the material on record, it is seen that the order of the Special Director on 30-3-1994 had been the basis for the complainant to file the complaint as seen from para 15 of the complaint. Patently, the said order has been set aside, subsequently, by the Appellate tribunal for Foreign Exchange, a Special tribunal constituted under the said statute. From the material on record, it is seen that the order of the Special Director on 30-3-1994 had been the basis for the complainant to file the complaint as seen from para 15 of the complaint. Patently, the said order has been set aside, subsequently, by the Appellate tribunal for Foreign Exchange, a Special tribunal constituted under the said statute. ( 9 ) IT is seen from the decision of Bombay high Court rendered in the case of Kiran shailen Jhaveri v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 85 ECC 600, wherein it is held that when the proceedings under sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the FERA Act could be concluded, no complaint had been maintained against the accused and as such the proceedings had been quashed. It is also pertinent to mention the other decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Neon Fab v. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2002 (83) ECC 296 (Del), wherein it is held that once the Appellate Authority had stayed the order under FERA Act no complaint could have been filed for violation of the said order. In the case on hand, the order, which had been passed by the complainant had been set aside by the competent authority. ( 10 ) IT is also seen from another decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. C. K. Moorjani, (2003) 156 ELT 184 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that if assessee is exonerated in the Department proceedings on the same set of facts and charges, no criminal prosecution can be launched. ( 11 ) AS stated earlier from the material on record, it is seen that the order of the special Director dated 30-3-1994 has been the basis for the complainant to maintain the complaint against the accused for contravening the said provisions of law and the said order had been set aside by a properly constituted Tribunal under the Statute. In other words, the order impugned dated 30-3-1994 does not exist. Such being the case the question of accused contravening the said provisions does not arise at all. In other words, the order impugned dated 30-3-1994 does not exist. Such being the case the question of accused contravening the said provisions does not arise at all. ( 12 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law in this regard, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings before the trial Court would amount to abuse of process of law and this would be a fit case where this Court will have to exercise inherent powers to meet the ends of justice. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition stands allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in CC No. 147/2000 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences stands quashed and the accused is discharged. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .