Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-Since these two petitions pertain to identical matter and questions involved are also identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitions seek quashing of Charge Sheets No. 250/2004 dated 13.08.2004 and 251/2004 dated 13.08.2004. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are that an FIR No. 228/2004 came to be registered at PS Kotwali, Jhalawar on 29.04.2004 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC wherein Charge Sheet No. 250/2004 was filed on 13.08.2004 keeping however the investigation open under Section 173(8), CrPC. It was alleged that a news item has appeared to the effect that a company namely; New Life New Culture Techno Soft Pvt. Ltd. was engaging persons for Computer Job Works so as to enable them to earn Rs. 4,000/-to Rs. 6,000/- per month and thus induced them to enroll themselves for the job by depositing an initial amount of Rs. 16,500/-. About 2200 persons applied and sought jobs in March, 2004. But, all the branches of the company were closed and the Administrator, Managing Director and Associates viz. Vishal Yadav, Santosh and Anupam absconded cheating the complainant and others of the aforesaid amount deposited by them. During the course of investigation from the related ID Holders, dishonoured cheques were seized. Establishment record, CDs, news cuttings and bank records were also seized. Bank statement of the company was also seized. The Regional Director, Shri Prahad Bihari Dadhich was arrested and charge sheet was filed against him keeping the investigation incomplete and pending under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. 4. Another FIR No. 231/2004 came to be registered at the same Police Station Kotwali, Jhalawar on 03.05.2004 wherein also after investigation Charge Sheet No. 251/2004 was filed on 13.08.2004 keeping the investigation pending under Section 173(8), CrPC. The same allegations are levelled in the said FIR also. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the cases has contended that offence of cheating has been defined in Section 415, IPC. The essential ingredients of the said offence are : “(a) fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person deceived. .(b) inducement to deliver any property to any person. .(c) to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. .(d) cause damage or harm to the person deceived.” 6. The essential ingredients of the said offence are : “(a) fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person deceived. .(b) inducement to deliver any property to any person. .(c) to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. .(d) cause damage or harm to the person deceived.” 6. It is, contended that contents of FIR does not disclose an offence under Section 420, IPC. The continuation of investigation, therefore, is unwarranted and abuse of the process of the Court. Even if contents of FIR are taken as gospel truth and converted into evidence it does not even prima-facie constitute the offence under Section 420, IPC. It is submitted in this regard that guidelines have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 . The guidelines as summarized and where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings are as under :- “(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance for example want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 7. He has further referred to the cases of State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 ; Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa, 1976 (3) SCC 736 = 1976 CrLJ 1533 ; Punjab National Bank vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC1815 = 1992 CrLJ 2915 = 1993 Supp (1) SCC499; Trisuns Chemcial Industry and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1869 = 2000 CrLJ 1487 = 2000 (3) SCC 269 ; State of U.P. vs. R.K. Srivastava, 1989 (4) SCC 59 = 1989 CrLJ 2301 . 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and has submitted that this case being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed in limine at the admission stage. 9. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and has submitted that this case being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed in limine at the admission stage. 9. It is now well settled by a catena of pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, CrPC should be exercised sparingly and in very extreme exceptions and only where the High Court is satisfied that even from allegations in the complaint/FIR and the materials collected in support thereof , no criminal offence whatsoever is even prima-faciemade out. It should be borne in mind that Criminal justice should not be used as a means to wreak personal vengeance. 10. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down in the various authorities of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and scrutiny of allegations made in the FIR, I am of the well considered view that the allegations in the FIR prima-facie disclose offence under Section 420, IPC and it cannot be said that it is an exceptional case wherein inherent powers of the Court should be exercised in order to check abuse of the process of the Court. It also cannot be said that the case has been registered in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. Indeed, the petitioner and his associates have given inducement to the various job seekers and by making a false representation that they would be able to earn Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-per month and later Rs. 5,000/-to Rs. 7,000/-per month at their houses. Made them to deposit Rs. 16,500/-per head thereafter, they not only closed the offices of the company but also absconded from there leaving the candidates helpless even to recover back the amount deposited by them. 11. In this view of the matter therefore, no case of quashing of charge-sheets in both these cases is made out. The authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not advance his case at all. They rather support the case of the prosecution. 12. Consequently, these petitions being devoid of merit and substance are dismissed in limine at the admission stage.