A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is roped in in a criminal case and as per the averments made in the FIR registered against her, she has allegedly committed offence under Section 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Passport act. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the ground that she has wrongly been arraigned as an accused in the said case and not at all connected with the commission of the alleged offence. ( 2 ) AS per FIR No. 177/03 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New delhi, at the instance of ASI Rajesh Kumar, two lady passengers, namely, sarabjit Gambhir, petitioner herein and Tejender Kaur, holder of passports No. R-771317 and A-4230124 respectively were leaving for Canada by flight No. 02-348. They came to the counter for immigration clearance. On scrutiny of their passports, it was found that cover Page of Tejender Kaur's passport had been changed. On interrogation she revealed that her actual name was Balwinder Kaur d/o Balkar Singh r/o House No. 18, New Subhash Nagar, Jallandhar, Punjab. She further revealed that her forged passport and her trip to Canada was arranged by one agent, namely, Sharma resident of Punjab for monetary consideration. She also stated that Ms. Sarabjit Gambhir, the petitioner herein, was helping her in taking the boarding card and immigration clearance. In this FIR it is also alleged that the tickets of the above named passengers were issued from the same place and were bearing the same PNR number. Later on, it was found that the arrival stamp on Page 26 of the passport of Balwinder Kaur was also forged. ( 3 ) AFTER the submission of the charge-sheet, vide order dated 29. 3. 2005, the charge under Section 419/120-B was framed against Balwinder Kaur as well as the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty whereas Balwinder Kaur pleaded guilty to the charge voluntarily. Therefore, on the same date Balwinder kaur was convicted under Section 419/120-B IPC. Arguments were heard on the point of quantum of sentence and order was passed on the same day sentencing her with imprisonment already undergone by her in custody during investigation with a fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. Therefore, on the same date Balwinder kaur was convicted under Section 419/120-B IPC. Arguments were heard on the point of quantum of sentence and order was passed on the same day sentencing her with imprisonment already undergone by her in custody during investigation with a fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. It may be noted at this stage that when the FIR was registered, while checking the documents of the two ladies at the time of immigration clearance on the intervening night of 24/25 April 2003, both the ladies were placed under arrest and were granted bail after few days. Therefore, in so far as Balwinder Kaur is concerned, vide order dated 29. 3. 2005 she has been convicted and sentenced with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and with imprisonment already undergone by her in custody during investigation. ( 4 ) AS noted above, the petitioner has pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the case in respect of the petitioner is at the stage of trial. However, instant petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in the said FIR, inter alia, on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner and even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, they did not constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner is implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of Balwinder Kaur recorded during interrogation which does not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner. Otherwise, there is no other material whatsoever justifying the commencement of the proceedings against her. It is further submitted that the disclosure statement given by the co-accused in police custody has to be treated with extreme caution and that apart, such a statement is directly hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the indian Evidence Act and, therefore, not admissible. It is contended that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is nowhere disputed that she was travelling on genuine documents. The only allegation made against her is that the air tickets of the petitioner and main accused Balwinder Kaur were bearing the same PNR and were issued from the same place. Such a situation does not militate against the petitioner as accused inasmuch as instances of tickets being picked or prepared at one place of different passengers are common. The only allegation made against her is that the air tickets of the petitioner and main accused Balwinder Kaur were bearing the same PNR and were issued from the same place. Such a situation does not militate against the petitioner as accused inasmuch as instances of tickets being picked or prepared at one place of different passengers are common. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent/state, on the other hand, submitted that the charge had already been framed against the petitioner but the petitioner did not file any revision petition challenging the order of framing of charge. He further submitted that at this stage the Court would not minutely look into the evidence and there was sufficient material justifying framing of the charge. ( 6 ) BOTH the counsel in support of their respective submissions relied upon various judgments note whereof shall be taken hereinafter while discussing those submissions. ( 7 ) IN the disclosure statement of Balwinder Kaur, it is, inter alia, stated that her father wanted her to marry her and in that connection, he wanted her to send to Canada and for this purpose, he held talks with some agent who told her that at IGI Airport she would meet one aunty, namely, Sarabjit Gambhir (the petitioner herein) who would help her in immigration facilities. On reaching airport Balwinder Kaur met the agent as well as the petitioner. The petitioner provided her inside information on immigration. After this, her father and the agent went back and she along with the petitioner reached the immigration when after checking by the immigration staff, it was found that her passport is forged. She has said that she does not know anything about the agent who held talks with her father which were not in her presence and that the "agent has tried to send me on a forged passport to Canada. I have made a mistake. Please forgive me. " ( 8 ) IN her disclosure statement the petitioner, inter alia, stated that she is dealing in the business of ladies suits and for this purpose she often travel to various countries such as Canada, London. I have made a mistake. Please forgive me. " ( 8 ) IN her disclosure statement the petitioner, inter alia, stated that she is dealing in the business of ladies suits and for this purpose she often travel to various countries such as Canada, London. About a month ago she had met a clean shaved Sikh and in the course discussion relating to foreign trips he asked the petitioner as to whether she was interested in helping persons from punjab as these persons are very much interested in going to Canada and London. The said person assured that in return he would give her air ticket as well as cash and she got tempted with this offer. Fifteen days before, the said person called the petitioner, who introduced her with another Sikh person and stated that his daughter was interested in going to Canada and asked her to help his daughter and was told that on reaching Canada he would give her Rs. 50,000/ -. She has narrated the incident of 24th April 2003 in the following words:-"on 24. 4. 2003 at about 10. 00 PM when I reached the air-port I met one girl, her father and the agent and they asked me to help the girl in reaching Canada and gave me the air-ticket. Regarding the forged passport of that girl I had no knowledge. When we reached immigration, the officials became suspicious about the girl and stopped her and at that time I learnt that her passport was forged and we both were caught and were handed over to you. I do not know the name of the agent but I can recognize him if he comes before me. I have made a mistake. Please forgive me. "thus, the petitioner in her disclosure statement has categorically denied any knowledge about the forged passport of Balwinder Kaur. ( 9 ) IN a series of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, power of the High court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. are well defined. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under this provision have now been virtually settled and reiterated in following cases: 1. Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC, 2006 [2] JCC 1190. ] 2. Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692 . 3. State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 4. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under this provision have now been virtually settled and reiterated in following cases: 1. Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC, 2006 [2] JCC 1190. ] 2. Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692 . 3. State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 4. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (6) SCC 194 . 5. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. , 1996 (5) SCC 591 . 6. State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agarwalla, 1996 (8) SCC 164 . 7. Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 202. 8. Medichi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological-E Ltd. , 2000 (3) SCC 269 . 9. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) JCC (SC) 362. 10. M. Krishnan v. Vijay Kumar, 2001 (8) SCC 645 . 11. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharanful Haque, 2005 (3) JCC 1583. ( 10 ) THE principles which have been settled and reiterated repeatedly in the aforesaid judgments are the following:-i. A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. ii. A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafide/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. iii. The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. iv. The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. iii. The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. iv. The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. if the necessary facutal foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. v. A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. ( 11 ) IT is also to be kept in mind that once the trial Court has framed charge against an accused, normally the trial has to proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by the accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence come on record should not be entertained except in exceptional cases. The High Court in proceedings under section 482 is not to evaluate the evidence meticulously and determine the question as to whether charge framed against the accused person is likely to succeed or not. This question is to be considered by the trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case and the High Court is not to pre-judge the case. (Ref. State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. , 2000 (8) SCC 239 . This question is to be considered by the trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case and the High Court is not to pre-judge the case. (Ref. State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. , 2000 (8) SCC 239 . Therefore, this Court is not supposed to evaluate the evidence in order to see as to whether the charge would ultimately be proved against the petitioner or not. However, a limited inquiry which is permissible is as to whether necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint/fir. If the allegations made in the complaint/fir even taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not ex facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. ( 12 ) IN the present case endeavour of the petitioner is to show that the allegations in the FIR or even in the disclosure statement even taken on its face value do not make out any case against her. Whether the petitioner has been able to succeed in this attempt or not is to be examined. The charge against the petitioner is framed under Section 419/120-B IPC. Even against balwinder Kaur charge was framed under these provisions, though in the FIR it was alleged that she has committed offence under Section 419/420/468/471 IPC and under Section 12 of the Passport Act. Thus, we are concerned only with Section 419/120-B IPC. Section 419 deals with cheating and Section 120-B deals with offence of criminal conspiracy. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was found helping Balwinder Kaur "in taking the boarding card and immigration clearance. On further scrutiny of the tickets it was found that both the tickets of the above mentioned pax (passengers) were issued from the same place and were having same PNR No. Later on it was found that arrival stamp on Page No. 26 of Balwinder Kaur's passport was also forged. " As mentioned above, even Balwinder Kaur was not charged of the offence of forgery but for cheating and criminal conspiracy, i. e. Section 419/120-B IPC. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that she was travelling on valid documents. Therefore, she has not cheated the department in any manner and charge under Section 419 is not even made out from the reading of FIR. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that she was travelling on valid documents. Therefore, she has not cheated the department in any manner and charge under Section 419 is not even made out from the reading of FIR. Interestingly, even as per the FIR, request was to register case against the petitioner under Section 120-B IPC only and not under Section 419. ( 13 ) COMING to the allegation of conspiracy, the only averment in the FIR is that the tickets of both the passengers were issued from the same place and were having same PNR number. Whether on this basis it could be said that the petitioner conspired with Balwinder Kaur in seeing to it that she travels on fake passport. Again it is not in dispute that the two tickets on which the two passengers were travelling were genuine. In identical circumstances when it was found that there was no involvement of the accused in obtaining fake passport and visa, nor was there anything to suggest that in the FIR as to in what manner facilitation was done by the accused, this Court held that charge of conspiracy was not made out. It was in Arunwan Thamvaro (Ms.) v. State, 2005 V AD (Delhi)576. That was also a case where it was argued that except for the disclosure statement of the two accused persons there was no evidence against the petitioner who was accused No. 3. Allegation in the said case against accused no. 3 (who had filed the petition for quashing) was the same, namely, she had facilitated the journey of other two co-accused on fake visas and in that manner had conspired in the offence of cheating and impersonation. The Court found that the petitioner did not make any disclosure statement before the Police. She was travelling on a genuine passport and a genuine visa. The prosecution was required to show some nexus either between the petitioner and the other accused in the case or between the petitioner and the act of acquisition of fake passports or fake visas which were used by the other two accused persons for their journey. Disclosure statement of the two accused persons in the said case was similar to the disclosure statement of Balwinder Kaur in the present case. They had also stated that they had met one Mr. Disclosure statement of the two accused persons in the said case was similar to the disclosure statement of Balwinder Kaur in the present case. They had also stated that they had met one Mr. Tak who offered to organise their journey to UK and USA and arranged passports and tickets for them. They further disclosed that thereafter Mr. Tak introduced them with a lady named Ms. Arunwan thamvaro (petitioner in the said case) and told them that she would carry both of them to London and thereafter, they both came to India with Ms. Arunwan thamvaro and settled in India and were caught on 29. 5. 2004 at the Airport while they were trying to leave for London. This disclosure statement was analysed by the Court in the following manner:-"6. There is no disclosure statement of the petitioner. Tak is not a co-accused. There is no statement of Tak on record. The fax communication from the British High Commission gives no evidence against the petitioner although it describes the petitioner as the facilitator (people smuggler ). This description is merely in the nature of allegation and cannot be read as evidence. The question is whether there was any legally admissible evidence against the petitioner. 7. The answer is clearly 'no'. The two disclosure statements of the two accused and statement given to police officer during the arrest are hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. None of the two statements has led to any discovery of fact and so no part of any of the two statements can be read as evidence. The report of Mr. Ganga is what Mr. Ganga gathered on scrutiny of their passports and on questioning Ms. Pinthong and Ms. Dormer. The report does not say he examined Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro. The relevant part of the report is as under:-"the third lady one Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro was a facilitator (people smuggler ). On questioning both Ms. Pinthong and Ms. Wimonwan Dormer revealed that Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro was facilitating their travel to U. K. Hence the passengers namely Ms. Hathai Pinhong and Ms. Wimonwan Dormer tried to cheat the immigration by attempting to travel on counterfeit documents and Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro was acting as their facilitator. " ( 14 ) NO doubt, in the present case there is a disclosure statement of the petitioner as well. Hathai Pinhong and Ms. Wimonwan Dormer tried to cheat the immigration by attempting to travel on counterfeit documents and Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro was acting as their facilitator. " ( 14 ) NO doubt, in the present case there is a disclosure statement of the petitioner as well. However, as noticed above, in her disclosure statement she has categorically stated that she was told by a Sikh gentleman to accompany balwinder Kaur for which purpose she would be paid some amount and has categorically stated that she did not know that the passport of Balwinder Kaur was forged. Further her statement, read as a whole, does not at all state that she was instrumental in getting the passport prepared in any manner. Thus, even in the present case when there is a disclosure statement of the petitioner, it would not make any difference. Here also prosecution has not disclosed any evidence of conspiracy against the petitioner. This judgment, therefore, applies on all fours in the instant case as even the fact situation is almost identical. Since there is a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court, following the ratio in this judgment I hold that no charge under Section 419/120-B IPC is made out against the petitioner even on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR. Therefore, this charge could not have been framed against the petitioner. This petition is allowed and the order dated 29. 3. 2005 framing charge against the petitioner under Section 419/120-B IPC is quashed and the petitioner is discharged in the said case. No costs.