JUDGMENT 1. - These two misc. petitions have been filed under section 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 17/10-11 (dated 21.12.2010) registered at Police Station Excise Department Neem KaThana, District Sikar for the offence under sections 18/54 (e) read with section 54(d) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and for quashing of the subsequent proceedings in cases No. 225/2011 and 224/2011 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l Shri Madhopur District Sikar including the filing of charge sheet, taking cognizance and order of framing the charges dated 18.6.2011 against the petitioner under sections 18/54 (e) read with section 54(d) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR Nos. 18/2010 and 17/2010 were registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act in which it was stated that M/s. Agribiotech Industries Pvt. Ltd. moved a written application in the office of Excise Inspector, Neem Ka Thana stating that M/s. Premier Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Puducheri has placed an order for supply of 40000 ltrs. extra neutral alcohol and in support thereof it had produced a "No bojection Certificate" of Deputy Commissioner (Excise ) Puducheri dated 3.11.2010. According to this No objection Certificate 40,000 Ltrs. Extra neutral alcohol was permitted to be exported. On the basis of aforesaid imported permit the District Excise officer Sikar has issued import permits SKR 016490 dated 22.11.2010 and SKR 016491 dated 22.11.2010. Thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid import permit transportation permit No. SKR 012791 dated 22.11.22010 and SKR 012792 dated 22.11.2010 were issued. On the basis of these export and transport permits in two tankers 20,000 ltrs. each extra neutral alcohol (total 40,000 ltrs.) were loaded for onwards delivery to M/s. Premier Distillaries Pvt. Ltd. RS No. 62/08 Madu Karai Road Manglam, Village Villianur Commune Puducherry. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner Puducherry has informed to the Excise authorities that the alleged aforesaid "No Objection Certificate" was not issued by his office and the same is forged. In this manner the accused petitioner deceived to the department and obtained the export permits and transportation permits. On the basis of the aforesaid report an FIR No. 18/2010 was registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. Mr. In this manner the accused petitioner deceived to the department and obtained the export permits and transportation permits. On the basis of the aforesaid report an FIR No. 18/2010 was registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner itself amounts to an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed. Neither the investigating agency nor the trial court looked into the material and only on the basis of surmises and conjecture implicated the petitioner and filed the charge sheet. He placed reliance on section 18 of the Excise Act and contends that there is no material on record to show the implication of the petitioner in the light of the ingredients of section 18 which provides " no excise article shall be removed from any distillery unless the duty payable has been or a bond has been executed for the payment thereof. Further he has made emphasis on section 54 of the Excise Act which provides for penalty for unlawful import, export, transport manufacture, possession, etc. It is stated that admittedly the petitioner has nothing to do with the provision of law and there is no evidence against him. The whole case of the prosecution against the accused petitioner is that he opened the account at Indore in Kotak Mahindra Bank in the name of Raj Kumar and Company and the amount was sent from this account. The petitioner who is resident of Indore was not having any knowledge about any thing which has happened in Rajasthan regarding supply of Neutral Alcohol. The charge sheet shows the payment of amount from the account of the petitioner from Indore in the account of M/s. Agribiotech Industries Ltd. and he has nothing to do with the forgery of the document. In these circumstances it was prayed that t he registration of FIR and all the proceedings against the accused petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside. In these circumstances it was prayed that t he registration of FIR and all the proceedings against the accused petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance has been placed on Ramchandra v. State of MP, 2001 (3) Crimes 166 (SC) , Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 , CBI v. Akhilesh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 , Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttranchal and others, JT 2007 (11) SC 499 , and Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009 (4) SCC 439 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the complainant have argued that the charge sheet has been filed against the accused petitioner and charge has been framed against him and the trial court recorded the statements of three witnesses and only four or five more prosecution witnesses are to be produced and the prosecution is ready to complete the trial at the earliest and at this stage the quashing of FIR, and the proceedings before the trial court, cannot be questioned in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage. There is enough material against the accused petitioner to connect him with the case as payment was made from the account of the accused petitioner from the Bank situated at Indore. There is no question of abuse of process of law in the instant matter. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the material available on record and the cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner. The FIRs were registered at Police Station Excise Department Neem Ka Thana District Sikar on 21.12.2010. The petitioner has filed the above misc. petitions only on 6.8.2011 at a very belated stage. In the instant matter, charge sheet has been filed and thereafter charge has been framed against the accused petitioner. The FIRs were registered at Police Station Excise Department Neem Ka Thana District Sikar on 21.12.2010. The petitioner has filed the above misc. petitions only on 6.8.2011 at a very belated stage. In the instant matter, charge sheet has been filed and thereafter charge has been framed against the accused petitioner. While framing the charge against the accused petitioner and five co-accused persons on 18.6.2011, the trial court observed as under : " eSaus i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA izLrqr izdj.k ds vUrxZr ifjoknh ris'kpUn }kjk bl vk'k; dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ fd eSleZ ,xzhck;ksVsd b.MLV~ht fyfeVsM vthrx<+] lhdj ls iqMqpsjh 20]000 yhVj ,DlV~k U;wV~y ,Ydksgy fu;kZr djus ds fy, Lohd`r izkIr dh xbZ vkSj mls v.Mj ckW.M tkjh fd;k x;k tcfd okLro esa ,slh dksbZ ekax iqMqpsjh ls ugha dh xbZ tcfd ,slk dksbZ Hkh vk;kr ijfeV tkjh ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izdj.k ds vUrxZr i=koyh ij eSelZ ,xzhck;ksVsd b.MLV~ht ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph gS ftlesa esa eqyfte gfj'k dqekj 'kekZ] fot; dqekj 'kekZ] fotsUnz dqekj 'kekZ] jkeckcw flag mDr QeZ ds deZpkjh gSa rFkk eqyfte iou mQZ lat; rFkk fo".kq }kjk QeZ dss [kkrs esa :i, tek djok, x, gSa rFkk fotsUnzdqekj 'kekZ ds }kjk fu;kZr ijfeV tkjh djus ds fy, vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk bl vkosnu ds lkFk fMIVh dfe'uj vkcdkjh }kjk tkjh gksuk crk;k tkdj dwVjfpr vk;kr ijfeV dzekad 1471 bl QeZ ds vf/kd`r gLrk{kjdrkZ gfj'k dqekj 'kekZ ds }kjk v.Mj ckW.M ifjogu ,oa 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k x;kA bl izdkj bl ,DLV~k U;wV~y ,Ydksgy ds fu/kkZfjr LFkku rd igqapkus dk mRrjnkf;Ro eSllZ ,xzhck;kVsd fyfeVsM dk Fkk ftls Vsadj uacj ,p0vkj0 38 ,e 8495 eas Hkjk x;k rFkk xsV ikl ij jkeckcw us gLrk{kj fd, gSa vkSj fot; dqekj 'kekZ us mlesa viuk lg;ksx fd;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh vuqla/kku esa ik;k x;k fd bl QeZ ds [kkrs esa 14]80]000 :i, jktdqekj ,.M dEiuh ds ek/;e ls tek djk, x, gSa] tks fd vuqla/kku esa ik;k x;k fd jktdqekj ,.M dEiuh ds uke ls QthZ [kkrk [kqyk;k vkSj ftlesa iou mQZ lat; vxzoky rFkk fo".kq jkBkSM+ ds }kjk bl [kkrs ls bl QeZ ds [kkrs esa :i, tek djok, x,A bl izdkj lHkh eqyfteku us dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj djds dwVjfpr vk;k ijfeV ds vk/kkj ij ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] lhdj ls 20]000 yhVj ,DlV~k U;wV~y ,Ydksgy eSllZ izhfe;j fMLVyjht izkbosV fyfeVsM] iqMqpsjh dks fu;kZr djus ds fy, voS/k o dqVjfpr ijfeV izkIr fd;k mls [kqnZ cqnZ fd;kA vr% i=koyh ij tks lk{; vk;h gS mlesa vU; eqyfteku dk lg;ksx gS ftlds lEcU/k esa /kkjk 173 ( 8 ) lh0vkj0lh0lh0 esa vuqla/kku tkjh rFkk i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; ds vkyksd esa eqyfteku gfj'k dqekj 'kekZ] jke ckcw] fot;dqekj 'kekZ] fotsUnz dqekj 'kekZ] iou mQZ lat; vkSj fo".kq ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 18@54 (E) rFkk /kkjk 54 (D) jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1950 ds vUrZxr vkjksi fojfpr djus dh i;kZIr lk{; gSA vr% eqyfteku ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 18@54 (E) rFkk /kkjk 54 (D) jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1950 ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA " Thereafter, the charge was framed and the accused petitioner denied the charge and the trial court started recording the statements of three prosecution witnesses and the Public Prosecutor has made a statement before this court that only four or five more witnesses of the prosecution are to be produced and the prosecution will fully cooperate in completing the trial expeditiously. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not been able to point any abuse of process of law or any material on record to show that it is a case in which at this stage when statements of three witnesses have already been recorded, this court should exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. Admittedly the payment was made from the account of the accused petitioner and there is enough material enough on record to connect the accused petitioner with the case. Thus the petition filed by the accused petitioner deserves to be rejected for quashing of the FIRs and the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.The inherent power could be exercised on the following points : (i) to prevent the abuse of the process by the court (ii) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby that the jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional circumstances of the case. The rulings cited by the counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioner has every right to raise the points raised in this petition before the trial court in his defence. Any comments on the merits of the case will prejudice the trial before the trial court, hence without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, the prayer of the accused petitioner for quashing the FIR and the proceedings before the trial court against him cannot be quashed in the inherent powers of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the criminal misc. petitions deserve to be rejected. 6. For these reasons, the misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 17/10-11 (dated 21.12.2010) registered at Police Station Excise Department Neem KaThana, District Sikar for the offence under sections 18/54 (e) read with section 54(d) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and for quashing of the subsequent proceedings in cases No. 225/2011 and 224/2011 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l Shri Madhopur District Sikar including the filing of charge sheet, taking cognizance and order of framing the charges dated 18.6.2011 against the petitioner under sections 18/54 (e) read with section 54(d) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 being devoid of merit stand rejected. However, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months,if possible. However, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months,if possible. The interim order passed by this court dated 10.8.2011 in both the misc. petitions stand vacated. The stay applications in both the misc. petitions stand rejected.Petitions & Stay Applications Dismissed. *******