AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2007 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in G.R.P.S. Case No. 203 of 2007. 3. According to the F.I.R., the informant who is opposite party no. 2 herein came to Patna from Hatia on 3.8.2007 and while getting down at Patna Junction his briefcase containing important documents alongwith Rs. 2,000/-was stolen by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and informant were well known to each other. Some land belonging to the petitioner was sought to be transferred to the informant but since the petitioner was not desirous of doing the same, the present criminal case has been instituted. He submits that the petitioner’s brother had transferred 4 Kathas of land in favour of the son of the informant and another 4 Kathas to the Sister-in-law (Bhabi) of the informant. For the remaining 4 Kathas of the same chunk of land the informant was pressuring the petitioner for transfer to him which the petitioner was resisting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that view of the matter it was absurd and unnatural that the petitioner would have followed the informant from Hatia to Patna and then at Patna Junction would have stolen the briefcase. He also submits that the petitioner is a businessman and owner of flour mill and also being an income tax payee it was totally unbelievable that he would steal the briefcase of the informant, both because there was nothing substantive in it and also because the petitioner and the informant were well known to each other. It is also submitted that for the said remaining 4 Kathas of land of the petitioner the informant has also instituted Title Suit No. 163 of 2008 which is pending before the Sub-Judge, 1st Ranchi. The said suit has been filed by the informant for specific performance of the Mahadanama between the petitioner and the informant with regard to the said 4 Kathas of the remaining land, which according to the petitioner is a forged and fabricated document. 4. The said suit has been filed by the informant for specific performance of the Mahadanama between the petitioner and the informant with regard to the said 4 Kathas of the remaining land, which according to the petitioner is a forged and fabricated document. 4. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the criminal case, which is the subject matter of the present application, is totally an abuse of the process of the Court and clearly filed with mala fide intention in order to derive undue advantage and put uncalled pressure on the petitioner, by the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri Vs. The State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 754, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 7 and 8. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing on record the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which the application for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer made in the application and has stated that sufficient materials exist and the Court has rightly taken cognizance. He relies on the following decisions rendered in the case of :- (i) Ram Sajjan Sah Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 1029 , the relevant being at paragraphs no. 20, 21 and 22. (ii) Dhananjay Singh Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 274 , the relevant being at paragraph no. 6. 6. Learned counsel also submits that since the stage of the case has changed in as much as the petition filed for discharge by the petitioner has been dismissed, the present application under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the prayer made in the application and supports the order taking cognizance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not yet been framed. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the prayer made in the application and supports the order taking cognizance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not yet been framed. 9. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would first like to deal with the question as to whether the present proceeding under Section 482 of the Code is appropriate for granting relief to the petitioner. Section 482 of the Code reads as under:– “482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.–Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 10. The plain reading of the language of Section 482 of the Code clearly makes it clear that the power itself is by way of inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court thus, has the power to intervene in any matter for securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter the objection raised by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 regarding maintainability, is rejected. 11. Upon consideration of the materials available on record as well as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court comes to the conclusion that the incident as alleged in the first information report lodged by the informant appears to be unconvincing and unbelievable. This Court further finds that if the proceeding arising out of the said criminal case are allowed to continue then it would be abuse of the process of the Court. With regard to the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no. This Court further finds that if the proceeding arising out of the said criminal case are allowed to continue then it would be abuse of the process of the Court. With regard to the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the case of Dhananjay Singh (supra), this Court would only like to observe that the order passed in the said case was in a different context in as much as the argument was that the Magistrate had taken cognizance without there being sufficient materials on record to proceed with the case. The Court is concerned with not letting the proceedings to continue in a criminal case in view of it being patently an abuse of the process of the Court. The merits of the allegations are not under consideration. For the reasons aforesaid, the said decision does not come to the aid of the opposite party no. 2 in the present case. 12. The other decision relied upon by opposite party no. 2 in the case of Ram Sajjan Sah (supra) is also not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that in the said case a complaint had been filed in which complainant and his daughter had supported the allegations made in the complaint petition and based upon the same the Court held that the cognizance taken could not be said to be without any basis or the ingredients totally absent. It was also held that the ground of hostility cannot warrant exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. In the present case since this is not the position as this Court has reached the conclusion that from the background of the facts and circumstances the very lodging of the F.I.R. itself appears to be abuse of the process of the Court, the said decision does not come to the aid of opposite party no. 2. On the other hand, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri (supra) which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner covers the present case where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:– “7. It was submitted by Mr. 2. On the other hand, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri (supra) which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner covers the present case where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:– “7. It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent, that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code………”. “8 Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. 13. Upon considering the rival contentions and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2007 is clearly unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 14. The application accordingly stands allowed.