JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks to quash FIR No. 256/1997 Police Station Sadul Shahar for offence u/s. 420 IPC. 2. I have perused the impugned First Information Report. Second respondent-Surendra Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of M/s. Goyal Trading Co., a grain merchant and commission agent at Sadul Shahar submitted a written report to the S.H.O. Police Station Sadul Shahar on 26.7.1997 stating interalia that there is a firm in the name of M/s. Ganganagar Vanaspati Refinery Ltd. and the petitioners herein Jai Gopal and Pramod Kumar are Directors of the said firm visited his shop on 23.6.1995 and made a proposal for supply of ghee. A good profit was also assured by them. On their demand, on behalf of the company, following cheques of Punjab National Bank were given to both the Directors:- (1) On 23.6.1995 Rs. 3,70,000/- (2) On 26.6.1995 Rs. 3,80,000/- (3) On 4.7.1995 Rs. 3,80,000/- (4) On 5.7.1995 Rs. 3,80,000/- In total Rs. 15,10,000/- Both the Directors failed to keep their promise to supply ghee immediately in spite of repeated request. Later on, he came to know that both the Directors have closed the factory almost a year back and left for Punjab. He tried to contact them in Punjab in vain. It is further alleged that both the Directors namely Pramod Kumar and Jai Gopal collected the cheques in the sum of Rs. 15,10,000/- fraudulently. From the beginning, they had no intention to supply the ghee. At the first instance, the petitioner approached to this Court u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of impugned First Information Report which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 817/1997. Notice was issued on 3.11.1997. When the matter came up for hearing on 2.8.1999, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is complete in the matter and police has decided to forward Final Report in negative. In view of this, counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition and the same was dismissed by the order of the Court dated 2.8.1999. Petitioner has again approached to this Court seeking direction to quash the same First Information Report on the ground that irrespective of the fact that more than three years have lapsed, no Final Report has yet being submitted by the police. Petitioner has again approached to this Court seeking direction to quash the same First Information Report on the ground that irrespective of the fact that more than three years have lapsed, no Final Report has yet being submitted by the police. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that outstanding of respondent-company has been shown in the balance-sheet of the petitioner-company. Supply of ghee could not be made as the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has taken possession on the factory on 25.10.1996 and since then entire factory and assets are in possession of R.F.C. The total book value of the assets of company at the time of taking over possession was Rs. 2.6 crores. It is further submitted that pure and commercial transaction which took place as back as in June and July, 1995 and, thereafter, regular accounting has been done and interest has been added and the outstanding was drawn as on 31.3.1996. Thereafter, again the accounting was done on 31.3.1997 and the interest on the entire outstanding has been made and calculated which comes to Rs. 20,27,647/-. It is alleged that instant complaint has been filed in collusion with R.F.C. with a view to grab entire assets of the company at nominal price. 3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per the averments made the petitioner himself, possession over the factory has been taken over by R.F.C. on 25.10.1996 whereas the cheques were given more than a year back i.e., in the month of June and July, 1995. If the accused-company has any intention to supply the ghee, they could have done it immediately as promised. It is further submitted that FIR is sought to be quashed to restrain the police from investigating the matter, but, in the instant case entire investigation is complete and the police is ready for submitting the report in negative or positive, as such, petition has itself become infructuous. It is further submitted that at this stage, allegation of complainant will have to be accepted on its face value and the truth or falsity of which would not be gone into by the Court at the earliest stage. The correctness of the allegations in the complaint is a matter of investigation. 4. I have considered the rival contention. It is further submitted that at this stage, allegation of complainant will have to be accepted on its face value and the truth or falsity of which would not be gone into by the Court at the earliest stage. The correctness of the allegations in the complaint is a matter of investigation. 4. I have considered the rival contention. It is held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 that powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 370 , the Apex Court held that there are large number of cases where criminal law and civil law run side by side. The two remedies are not actually exclusively but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. This Court after dealing with various decisions of Apex Court in M/s. Sudhir Gen Sets Limited & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1010/2002, decided on 19.12.2003 observed in para 12 as follows:- "12. Thus, the consensus is that the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly exercised in a matter of quashing FIR. The power can be exercised only in a case where on perusal of complaint, the Court comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or the FIR on the face of it, does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged. The investigating agency should have a freedom to go into the whole gamut of allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. The prevention of such investigation would be justified only in exceptional cases." 5. In the instant case on reading of complaint, it cannot be said that it does not disclose the commission of offence. The allegations satisfies the ingredients of offence u/s. 420 IPC. It must be remembered that every promise by a person as to his future conduct implies the statement of intention about it. In the instant case on reading of complaint, it cannot be said that it does not disclose the commission of offence. The allegations satisfies the ingredients of offence u/s. 420 IPC. It must be remembered that every promise by a person as to his future conduct implies the statement of intention about it. It may be inferred from the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1967 SC 986 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not difficult to discern an element of deception in the whole transaction. There is specific allegation that here was dishonest inducement on the part of the accused company and thereby the accused company succeeded in parting with the complainant company a huge sum of Rs. 15,10,000/-. The accused company made a false representation that they will supply the vegetable ghee immediately and now a dishonest plea has been taken that R.F.C. Has taken over the possession of factory on 25.10.1996. They failed to supply the ghee for more than a year. The circumstances lead to a tentative inference that accused-company had a dishonest intention from the beginning in spite of receiving a huge amount ghee was not supplied. Subsequent conduct including the fact that second respondent left Ganganagar clearly reflects that accused-company was not willing to complete the bargain. Thus, the allegations in the complaint are capable of making out a case against the accused-petitioner for offence u/s. 420 IPC. 6. In view of the aforesaid, instant misc. petition stands dismissed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties no merits of the case at an appropriate stage. Record of the case be returned. forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******