JUDGMENT: ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. Petitioner was a finance company. They used to give personal loan against pledge of gold. According to the respondent, she took loan upon pledge of gold ornaments on February 19, 2008 and February 25, 2008. The finance company disbursed rupees sixty-three thousand and three hundred on two different dates being rupees twenty-five thousand three hundred on March 19, 2008 and rest rupees thirty-eight thousand on May 24, 2008. On May 24, 2008 the entire loan amount was refunded. However, the company refused to give back the gold ornaments. According to the company, the respondent obtained loan of rupees twenty five thousand and three hundred on February 19, 2008. On March 19, 2008 she visited office of the petitioner and paid the interest for rupees five hundred and six and prayed for renewal. Accordingly, the said loan of rupees twenty-five thousand and three hundred was renewed and the new loan account was opened on the said date. On February 25, 2008 the respondent obtained another loan of rupees thirty eight thousand being loan account no.187. On May 24, 2008 the respondent asked for enhancement of the existing loan as there was appreciation in the rate of gold. On May 24, 2008 she deposited sixty-seven thousand and one for closure of the loan account no.187 and 234 for rupees forty thousand two hundred and fifty five and rupees twenty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-six respectively inclusive of interest and service charge. She opened a new account being loan account no.341 and 342 for rupees thirty-nine thousand and twenty-seven thousand respectively. Thereafter she took another loan of rupees sixty-six thousand from the company on the same day and received the amount in cash. According to the petitioner, the respondent owed the said sum of rupees sixty-six thousand as principal in respect of both the loan accounts as also the interest accrued thereon. She did not pay back the money despite demand. The respondent approached the learned Magistrate by filing a complaint on the allegation that she was cheated by the company and, thus, the officials of the company were liable to suffer punishment under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She did not pay back the money despite demand. The respondent approached the learned Magistrate by filing a complaint on the allegation that she was cheated by the company and, thus, the officials of the company were liable to suffer punishment under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding the petitioner has now come up for quashing of the Howrah Police Station Case No.118 of 2010 dated May 11, 2010 presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah as G.R. Case No.1919 of 2010. Ms. Sarbari Datta, learned counsel appearing in support of the application contends that the respondent confused the issue by misleading this Court. From her own averment made in the petition it would appear that she repaid the loan on May 24, 2008 and on the same day she obtained another loan which she did not repay. She relied upon a cash receipt appearing at page 12 of the petition which would show that she paid rupees sixty-seven thousand and one in cash and on the same day she obtained loan as would appear from her petition. Hence, such disputed questions of fact should be tried by a Civil Court. Ms. Datta further contended that the respondent initially approached the Consumer Redressal Forum for the identical relief. Hence, she was not entitled to move the criminal Court on the self-same plea. In support of her contention Ms. Datta related on the following decisions: i) Grasim Industries Ltd. & Another -VS- Agarwal Steel reported in 2009 Volume-VII Supreme Page-106 ii) Rajeswar Tiwari & Others -VS- Nanda Kishore Roy reported in 2010 Volume-VIII Supreme Page-601 Opposing the application on behalf of the complainant/respondent Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel contended that once the loan was repaid the finance company was not entitled to withhold the possession of the gold and, thus, would be liable for the offence committed under Section 406 apart from Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the finance company was taking advantage of a mistake crepped in the petition of complaint. He referred to the affidavit-inopposition filed in this Court. According to him, whenever the complainant went to deposit money they used to take signature on blank papers which were used for opening of the subsequent accounts. Mr. He contended that the finance company was taking advantage of a mistake crepped in the petition of complaint. He referred to the affidavit-inopposition filed in this Court. According to him, whenever the complainant went to deposit money they used to take signature on blank papers which were used for opening of the subsequent accounts. Mr. Bhattacharya, in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions: i) M. Narayandas -VS- State of Karnataka & Others reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page-118 ii) Central Bureau of Investigation -VS- A. Ravishankar Prasad & Others reported in 2009 Volume-III Crimes Page-48 [Supreme Court] I have carefully analyzed the pleadings. I have considered the rival contentions. The petitioner’s version of the story, in my view, cannot be said to be improbable. They justified the closing and opening the account when there was variance in gold rate. It might be their system, I do not know. The complainant however says that whenever she visited the company she signed blank papers. A lady when approached a company for obtaining loan by pledging her gold ornaments it would rather be difficult to conceive that everytime she would sign blank papers and would not question and/or resist the same. The money receipt annexed to the pleadings would support deposit of money in a particular account. Her plea that mistake crepped in the petition before the learned Magistrate which she, for the first time, realized while filing affidavit in opposition on February 17, 2011, would rather be difficult to conceive of. In any event, she already approached the Consumer Redressal Forum and got the desired result. On the self-same plea her approach to the Criminal Court is possibly not correct. Mr. Bhattacharya relied on the decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra) where the Supreme Court once again reiterated that exercising power under Section 482, the allegations in the complaint and charge-sheet taken on their face value if constitute an offence, quashing would not be proper. He also relied on the decision in the case of M. Narayandas (Supra) where the Supreme Court once again reiterated that the power under Section 482 should be sparingly used in rarest of rare cases. Ms. He also relied on the decision in the case of M. Narayandas (Supra) where the Supreme Court once again reiterated that the power under Section 482 should be sparingly used in rarest of rare cases. Ms. Datta relied on the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (Supra) wherein the Apex Court observed, “when a person signs a document there is a presumption, unless there is a proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.” From the petition of complaint it appears that the complainant repaid the entire loan on May 24, 2008. She again took loan on May 24, 2008. On that basis she obtained order from the learned Magistrate. If the entire petition is taken on its face value it would not amount to any offence as the finance company under the agreement was entitled to withhold possession of the gold ornaments unless and until the loan was repaid. If we look to the celebrated decision on this issue being State of Haryana-VS- Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supplementary Volume-I Supreme Court Cases Page-335 we would find seven guidelines to be followed while considering prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding. They are – “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence co0llected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Following the said guidelines, in my view, once the petitioner filed an application under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code and obtained an order on the basis of the allegations made therein the Court while considering the prayer for quashing must take the petition as it is. Subsequent correction pointed out after five months and that too while filing affidavit in opposition to the prayer for quashing, would not be sufficient. Moreover the correction, so suggested, does not inspire confidence in me about its truthfulness, rather the statements made in the petition did have corroboration with the details of the dealings so highlighted by the petitioner company in their petition before me. From the complaint it would also appear that the same is improbable particularly if we look to the case made by the complainant before the Consumer Redressal Forum. Before the Consumer Redressal Forum complainant stated that after the entire money was paid the company demanded a sum of rupees four thousand seven hundred and sixty-six towards interest. The complainant could not pay the said sum on the same day as such the ornament was withheld. Before the Consumer Redressal Forum complainant stated that after the entire money was paid the company demanded a sum of rupees four thousand seven hundred and sixty-six towards interest. The complainant could not pay the said sum on the same day as such the ornament was withheld. On a subsequent day i.e. on May 29, 2008 when the complainant went to the office of the petitioner to take back the ornament the company refused to give the same. Such case is conspicuously absent here. The proceeding is nothing but harassing and vexatious, particularly when the complainant already chose her forum being the Consumer Redressal Forum and got her desired relief. In my view, this application should succeed. Matter may be viewed from another angle. The chance of success in the said case, if allowed to be proceeded with, would be bleak as the proceedings before Consumer Redressal Forum if produced, would depict a different story. Such blatant contradiction would be fatal for the prosecution. Police Station Case No.118 of 2010 dated May 11, 2010 now G.R. Case No.1919 of 2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah is quashed and set aside along with orders, if any, passed thereunder. There would be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of two months from date. During the period of stay, the said case however, may not be proceeded with.