JUDGMENT S.P.Talukdar, J. 1. THE petitioner, Smt. Sunayana Yeshwant Bhandari, by filing the instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought for quashing of proceeding being C.G.R. No. 920 of 2008, pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South). THE said case relates to Gariahat Police Station Case No. 51 of 2008 dated 19th March, 2008 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows :- The petitioner is the daughter of late Dev Coomar Singhi and late Kamal Sundari Singhi. O.P. 2 is her younger brother. Mother of the petitioner used to reside at premises No. 49C, Gariahat Road, Kolkata 700 019 in a room which belonged to her in the second floor of the said premises. O.P. 2 also resides in the second and third floor of premises No. 49C, Gariahat Road, Kolkata. On 16th of February, 2008, she came down to Kolkata on receipt of an information of her mother's indisposition. As she reached Kolkata, she found the room of her mother was locked. She was hospitalized in AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria, Kolkata. She was in a state of comma. The petitioner was accommodated in the third floor of the said premises at Kolkata. 3. ON 26th February, 2008, the mother of the petitioner died leaving behind a Will dated October 30, 2006. By the said Will, she was appointed the Sole Executrix and the Sole Legatee of all the assets of her mother. In the second floor of the said premises where her mother used to reside, there were about eleven almirahs and two iron safes. Her mother used to keep all her personal belongings in the almirahs. She also used to keep silver wares and other articles and valuable curios in the wooden boxes. After the death of her mother, the petitioner, on March 3, 2008, showed a copy of the registered Will of her mother to O.P. 2. The latter on going through the same became furious and compelled the petitioner and her son to leave the said premises with bag and baggage. The petitioner had to take shelter in her relative's house at 9/3A, Gariahat Road. The latter on going through the same became furious and compelled the petitioner and her son to leave the said premises with bag and baggage. The petitioner had to take shelter in her relative's house at 9/3A, Gariahat Road. Subsequently, when she went to the premises No. 49C, Gariahat Road to make an inventory of the goods and assets left by her mother, the O.P. No. 2 did not permit her to go into the said room and make the inventory. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an First Information Report with Gariahat Police Station on March 6, 2008. 4. THE petitioner had two lockers jointly with her mother on rent in the Indian Bank, Gariahat Branch. THE said two lockers were marked as 'either or survivor'. THE branch manager of the concerned bank informed that the learned District Delegate at Alipore had passed an order on March 4, 2008, inter alia, restraining the petitioner from operating her locker in the said bank. On enquiry, it could be learnt that O.P. No.2 had filed an application for grant of letters of administration to the estate of late Dev Coomar Singhi and also sought for appointment of administrator pendente lite. In the said application, it was falsely alleged that the late Dev Coomar Singhi, who died on March 3, 1999, had left behind estate including jewelleries, which were kept in the lockers belonging to the petitioner and her late mother. It was falsely claimed that the O.P. No. 2 had kept some jewellery in the said lockers. The petitioner filed an application before the learned District Delegate at Alipore for vacating of the order dated March 4, 2008. The learned District Delegate, by order dated March 28, 2008, held that the applications had become contentious and as such, returned the papers of O.P. No. 2. In the said week of March 2008, some police officers came to the petitioner's temporary residence and started making enquiries with regard to the operation of the lockers of the petitioner. She was quite surprised at the questions, which were put to her by the police authority. She could, however, gather from such questions that O.P. No. 2 had lodged a complaint against her, inter alia, alleging that late Kamal Sundari Singhi had two lockers at Indian Bank, Gariahat Branch and one locker at State Bank of India, Gariahat Branch along with the petitioner (either or survivor). She could, however, gather from such questions that O.P. No. 2 had lodged a complaint against her, inter alia, alleging that late Kamal Sundari Singhi had two lockers at Indian Bank, Gariahat Branch and one locker at State Bank of India, Gariahat Branch along with the petitioner (either or survivor). It was falsely claimed that the present petitioner had operated the said locker wherein O.P. No. 2 had some jewelleries of his own. It was, thus, alleged that the present petitioner by operating the said lockers had removed the jewelleries of the complainant as also of his late father. O.P. No. 2, thus, alleged that the present petitioner had committed offences under Sections 420/406/120B of I.P.C. 5. BEING frustrated over vacating of the interim order by the learned District Delegate, O.P. No. 2 set the criminal law into motion. He knew that the present petitioner, thereafter, had to return to her home in USA and the false case was filed in order to harass her. 6. IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application, which was filed before the learned Court with the prayer for direction upon the police to investigate after treating the said complaint as FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., does not disclose commission of any offence. O.P. No. 2 is a habitual litigant and he filed cases against his father, since deceased, as also against his uncles both in the Alipore Court as well as in the High Court. He also filed a case against his grand mother, late Sushila Devi Singhi. The present petitioner claimed that the averments in the petition of complaint, which was directed to be treated as FIR, do not make out any case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There had been no transaction between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. There could be no question of any inducement or deception, which is a sine qua non of an offence of cheating. Even assuming that the lockers, which were in the name of the petitioner, jointly with her mother, since deceased, were operated, it could not make out any offence of criminal breach of trust. The basic ingredient of an offence of criminal breach of trust is entrustment of property. There is no allegation that any property was entrusted to the petitioner and as such, there could be no offence of criminal breach of trust. The basic ingredient of an offence of criminal breach of trust is entrustment of property. There is no allegation that any property was entrusted to the petitioner and as such, there could be no offence of criminal breach of trust. In such circumstances, the instant application had been filed with prayer for quashing of the impugned proceedings, being C.G.R. No. 920/2008. 7. MR. Sekhar Basu, appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not by any stretch of imagination constitute any offence either under Section 420 of I.P.C. or under Section 406 of I.P.C. It was submitted that the lockers under reference being admittedly in the joint names of the present petitioner and her mother, since deceased, the petitioner had every right to operate the same. It was further submitted that there could be no material worth mentioning so as to substantiate that there could be any deception on the part of the present petitioner. 8. IN absence of any even prima facie material indicating entrustment, there could be no question of any criminal or any breach of trust. According to Mr. Basu, continuation of the proceeding under reference, in such circumstances, would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Learned Counsel for the State respondent submitted that the allegations, as made in the FIR, are rather far too serious. It was contended that the present petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with the Branch Manager of the Indian Bank, Gariahat Branch and the present petitioner being accused No. 1 operated the two lockers being Nos. 464 and 401 and the petitioner took out jewelleries being the paternal properties of the complainant valued at Rs. 45,00,000/- without the consent of the complainant. It was then submitted that in course of investigation, the relevant documents pertaining to the operation of the said two lockers being Nos. 464 and 401 on 21st of February, 2008 as also the inventory of the articles taken out by the present petitioner could be collected. 9. ON the other hand, Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, appearing as learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2/Compalinant, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner does not deserve to be entertained at this nascent stage and law must be allowed to take its own course. 10. MR. 9. ON the other hand, Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, appearing as learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2/Compalinant, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner does not deserve to be entertained at this nascent stage and law must be allowed to take its own course. 10. MR. Bagchi referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between State of Orissa and Anr. And Saroj Kumar Sahoo, as reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272, and submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. The said section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the said case held :- "While exercising the powers under the Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice." 11. IT is well settled that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 12. THE Apex Court in the said case, however, observed that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule, which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possible arise. It cannot be denied that such power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash a proceeding cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 13. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possible arise. It cannot be denied that such power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash a proceeding cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 13. TRUE, by invoking inherent power of the Criminal Court or writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not conform an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim and caprice. 14. BUT what happens when the allegations made in the FIR appear to suffer from inherent absurdity, latent vagueness and ill-motive ? Will the Court in such a situation remain a passive onlooker ? In the factual backdrop of the present case, it cannot be denied that both the brother and the sister are at daggers drawn. They are anxious to grab every little thing left by their predecessors. They count every drop of blood and not ready to leave anything aside. The manner in which the present petitioner rushed to the Bank, with her mother virtually left in the death bed, leaves practically nothing untold. But when a Bank locker is in the joint names of two, how can anyone grudge if one of the said two persons operate it ? Ordinarily, the Bank manager is left with no choice and nothing could be wrong in allowing one of them to operate it. It is not that there had been any Court order or any other legal restriction or even, any restraint order from higher authority. 15. AS discussed earlier, there are other litigations over claims of property. Law must take its own course. But so far the criminal case under reference is concerned, in absence of any ingredient indicating deception or entrustment, I find no justification for allowing it to continue. This Court certainly cannot remain indifferent when it finds that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or it is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. This Court certainly cannot remain indifferent when it finds that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or it is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. THIS stand finds support from the Apex Court decisions in the cases between State of Haryana And Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Rupen Deol Bajaj And K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 . Considering all such facts and circumstances, I find that continuation of the criminal proceeding under reference will be an abuse of the process of Court and result in miscarriage of justice. 17. ACCORDINGLY, the application being C.R.R. No. 1387 of 2008 succeeds and be allowed. The criminal proceeding being C.G.R. No. 920 of 2008 pending before the learned Court of C.J.M., Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 51 of 2008 dated 19th March, 2008 be quashed. Criminal department is directed to supply certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, to the learned Counsel for both parties as expeditiously as possible.