JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, an accused in Special Case No. 2852/C10 corresponding to RC 14/09 GWH : State v. Santosh Jasrasaia and Ors. has filed this criminal revision petition with the prayer for quashing of Annexure-C final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. Be it stated here that the respondent CBI has enclosed the full text of the FIR dated 06.08.2009 along with their counter affidavit. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said FIR dated 06.08.2009. 2. Mr. T. B. Jamir, appearing for the petitioner has exclusively referred to the nature of the allegations made against the accused/ petitioner in the impugned report so as to contend that there being no ingredients of any conspiracy being hatched by the petitioner with that of main accused, no proceeding against him could have been initiated. It is submitted by Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge sheet submitted by the CBI there being no whisper of any criminal conspiracy, the Special Judicial Magistrate could not have asked the petitioner to appear before the Court to answer the charges under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 468,420, 471 and 201 IPC. Referring to the attribution of the particular conduct on the part of the petitioner as reflected in the impugned final report, Mr. Jamir, has submitted that whatever the petitioner had done, same was during the course of the business and thus there being no involvement of the petitioner in the offence attributed to him, entire proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. To buttress the aforesaid argument, Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: AIR 1974 SC 898 : Bhagwandas Keshwani v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1754 : Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar AIR 1980 SC 1382 : State, Delhi Administration, v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 5 SCC 749 : Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 335 : State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 4. Countering the above argument, Mr. K. L. Jhon, learned counsel, representing the CBI, on the other hand submits that the instant revision petition is not maintainable in law. Countering the above argument, Mr. K. L. Jhon, learned counsel, representing the CBI, on the other hand submits that the instant revision petition is not maintainable in law. He submits that on a bare perusal of the impugned report furnished by the CBI it would be seen that the petitioner is deeply involved in the offence attributed to him. He has questioned the very maintainability of the revision petition on the ground of being premature. He submits that the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court solely on the basis of the summon (Annexure-D) issued to him. The petitioner will get adequate opportunity to have his say in the matter of framing of charges by the Court below. 5. Mr. Jhon, learned counsel, representing the CBI has also placed reliance on certain decision, which are -1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 335: State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal and (2008) 4 SCC 471 : CBI v. K. M. Sharon. 6. Mr. K. K. Bhatra, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank submits that the revision petition is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner ought to have responded to the Annexure-D summon issued to him. He submits that since the petitioner will get adequate opportunity of being heard in respect of the framing of charges, this Court will be reluctant to exercise its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., more particularly when there is prima facie disclosure of a case against the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and so also entire materials on record. In the impugned final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C, there is attribution of following act on the part of the petitioner, which, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain as the conduct during the course of business: Investigation also revealed that the bill No. NEE/RD/2004/01 dtd. 21.07.2004 amounting to Rs. 12, 14, 928/- for 450 bundles of CGI sheet to DRDA Tuensang ii) NEE/RD/2004/02 dtd. 21.07.2004 amounting Rs. 14,84,912/- for 550 bundles CGI sheet DRDA, Zunheboto, iii) NEE/RD/2004/3 dtd. 21.07.2004 amounting Rs. 26,99,840 for 1000 bundles of CGI sheet were prepared by Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal, S/o Late Mahabir Prashad, 402 Sidha Apartment, Athgaon, Guwahati as per direction of Sh. Santosh Jasrasaria, Guarantor of M/s North East Enterprises." Investigation also revealed that the above bills were prepared by Sh. 21.07.2004 amounting Rs. 26,99,840 for 1000 bundles of CGI sheet were prepared by Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal, S/o Late Mahabir Prashad, 402 Sidha Apartment, Athgaon, Guwahati as per direction of Sh. Santosh Jasrasaria, Guarantor of M/s North East Enterprises." Investigation also revealed that the above bills were prepared by Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal, S/o Late Mahabir Prashad on the request of Santosh Jasrasaria, Guarantor of M/s. North East Enterprises signature and the signature of Shri I. Wabang Langkumer, Store Keeper, Rural Development Blocks, Dimapur on the road Challan No. i) NEE/RD/2004/02 dtd. 21.07.2004 ii) NEE/RD/2004/03 dtd. 21.07.2004 and iii) NEE/ RD/2004/05 dtd. 21.072004 was fraudulently put by Santosh Jasrasaria. Investigation also revealed that M/s North East Enterprises actually did not supply the seedlings as shown in above two bills submitted to Andhra Bank, Guwahati and the bills were pepared by Om Prakash Agarwal at the request of Santosh Jasrasaria, the Guarantor of NE Enterprises which is a false/bogus bill. Investigation revealed that the letter no. i) 0595/16/NEE/282 dtd. 07.082004 (consignment no E00602609) ii) OBCB/2004/000002 dtd. 07.08.2004 and iii) OBCB/2004/000006 dtd. 06.11.2004 (consignment no. E00609074 & E00609075) and addressed to the Project Director, DRDA, Dimapur, Nagaland and letter no. iv) OBCB/2004/000003 dtd. 23.08.2004 and v) OBCB/2004/000004 dtd. 23.08.2004 (consignment no E00602617) addressed to the Director, Wasteland Development, Kohima send by Andhra Bank, Guwahati for collection of bills through DTDC (Desk to Desk Courier), Fancy Bazar, Guwahati cancelled by Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Late Mahabir Prashad same day after about one hour from the booking consignment under the direction of Santosh Jasrasaria. Investigation also revealed that bills no. KTUD/008 dtd. 15.10.2004 for Rs. 33,50,000/- and bill no: KTUD/009 dtd. 15.10.2004 for Rs. 41,00,000/- furnished to Andhra Bank Guwahati by M/s. Kohima Traders along with Road Challan, bill and forwarding letter were prepared by Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal, S/o Late Mahabir Prashad, 402 Sidha Apartment, Athgaon, Guwahati at the request of Sh. Santosh Jasrasaria, Guarantor of M/s North East Enterprise. Investigation also revealed that M/s Kohima Traders actually did not supply seedlings as shown in above to bills submitted to Andhra Bank, Guwahati and the bills were prepared by Om Prakash Agarwal at the request of Santosh Jasrasaria, the Guarantor of NE Enterprises which is a false/bogus bill. Investigation also revealed that the letter no: i) OBCB/2004/000008 dtd. 06.11.2004 and ii) OBCB/2004/000009 dtd. 06.11.2004 (consignment no. Investigation also revealed that the letter no: i) OBCB/2004/000008 dtd. 06.11.2004 and ii) OBCB/2004/000009 dtd. 06.11.2004 (consignment no. E00609074) send to the Director Wasteland Development, Nagaland, Kohima by Andhra Bank, Guwahati for collection of bills through DTDC (Desk to Desk Courier), Fancy Bazar, Guwahati cancelled by Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Late Mahabir Prashad same day after about one hour from the booking consignment under the direction of Santosh Jasrasaria. Hence this chargesheet under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 468, 420, 471and Section 201 IPC is submitted before this Hon'ble Court against the said accused persons namely Santosh Jasrasaria S/o Late Chinranjilal, resident of D-53 Greater Kailash, Enclave-II, New Delhi-48 and Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Late Mahabir Prasad, 402 Sidha Apartment, Athgaon, Guwahati to face their trial. It is prayed that cognizance may be taken and processes may be issued to the accused persons to face their trial as per law. 8. Referring to the aforesaid statements appearing against the petitioner, Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whatever the petitioner had done was on the request of the main accused and that the petitioner of his own did nothing so as to warrant any proceeding against him. 9. In Bhagwandas Keshwani (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the evidence on record, held that it was difficult to hold on the slender evidence on record, that the purpose of the fabrication alleged by the prosecution had been established beyond reasonable doubt or that a conspiracy between the two involved could be inferred form the suspicious circumstances proved against them. This case has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his argument that there being no element of conspiracy involving the petitioner with that to the main accused, no charge can be framed against him. Suffice is to say that it is too pre-mature to come to any definite conclusion at this stage. Materials will have to be gone into towards framing of charges against the petitioner. In the above decision of the Apex Court, there was evidence to come to the particular finding, which is not the case in hand. 10. In Dr. Suffice is to say that it is too pre-mature to come to any definite conclusion at this stage. Materials will have to be gone into towards framing of charges against the petitioner. In the above decision of the Apex Court, there was evidence to come to the particular finding, which is not the case in hand. 10. In Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha (supra), the Apex Court while referring to settled law, where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the said proposition of law. But what is required to be seen is as to whether there are ingredients towards framing of charge against the accused. In the instant case, the stage has not yet reached. It is only at the stage of issuance of summon asking the petitioner to appear before the Court below to hear him on the issue of framing of charges. It cannot be said to be a case of no evidence and/or acquittal against the petitioner warranting interference of this Court exercising its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. The case of V. C. Shukla (supra) has been pressed into service so as to contend that to prove a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120B, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the available materials on record submits that it cannot be said to be a case of criminal conspiracy by the petitioner with that to main accused. In the said case the Apex Court was concerned with the burden of prove and the duties of the prosecution. In the instant case, only summon has been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Court so as to consider framing of charges upon hearing him. The kind of argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is always open to be advanced before the Trial Court, in which issue relating to framing of charges is presently pending. The kind of argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is always open to be advanced before the Trial Court, in which issue relating to framing of charges is presently pending. Thus, this case is also no help to the case of the petitioner. 12. Referring to the case of Bhajanlal, Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that where the allegations made in the FIR 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/petitioner, the Trial Court ought not to have issued summon asking the petitioner to appear before it in respect of hearing relating to framing of charges. According to Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, materials available on record do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused petitioner. 13. If we go by the nature of allegation made in the impugned final report under Section 173, it cannot be said to be a case of absolute no evidence. I hasten to add that no opinion has been expressed in this regard lest the case of the petitioner is prejudiced before the Trial Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI and the Bank have also placed reliance on the decision of Bhajanlal so as to emphasis that the kind of action where power and jurisdiction under Section482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised is not present in the instant case. They have particularly referred to paragraph 102 and 103 of the decision in Bhajanlal, which are quoted below: 102. P. C. can be exercised is not present in the instant case. They have particularly referred to paragraph 102 and 103 of the decision in Bhajanlal, which are quoted below: 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to law down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 the other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable 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 collected 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 cognisable office but constitute only a non-cognisable 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. (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 proceeding 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act to its whim or caprice. 15. Needless to say that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. As has been held by the Apex Court, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or other documents. 16. In the instant case, there is attribution against the petitioner as could be gathered from the impugned final report furnished by the CBI. As to whether the said attribution will constitute any offence as reflected in the Annexure-D summon is a matter to be decided by the Trial Court. It is not for this Court to make a roving enquiry for accepting or rejecting of the charge sought to be framed against the petitioner. 17. Mr. As to whether the said attribution will constitute any offence as reflected in the Annexure-D summon is a matter to be decided by the Trial Court. It is not for this Court to make a roving enquiry for accepting or rejecting of the charge sought to be framed against the petitioner. 17. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Pepsi Foods Ltd., so as to emphasis on the scope of High Court's power to quash criminal proceeding exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this connection he has referred to Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment in which it has been stated that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and thus a duty is cast upon the Court to find out as to whether there is sufficient materials to summon an accused or not. Unlike the present case, in the said case, the Apex Court found that the complaint did not prima facie disclose any materials against the accused. It was satisfied with the materials on record that the Trial Magistrate while issuing summon did not apply its mind as to whether materials available on record did disclose any offence against the accused petitioner involved in the said case. 18. Mr. Jhon, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has also placed reliance on the decision of K. M. Sharan (supra), so as to emphasis that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. is not called upon to embark upon the enquiry whether the allegation in the FIR and the charges are reliable or not and thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness and veracity of the allegations. In the said decision it was held that those are matters which should be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire materials are produced before it. 19. As in the said case, in the instant case also and as recorded above, the petitioner will get ample opportunity to have his say in the matter, once the matter is taken up by the Trial Court for framing of charges. Whatever contention has been advanced by the petitioner in the instant criminal revision petition, will also be available to him to advance before the Trial Court. Whatever contention has been advanced by the petitioner in the instant criminal revision petition, will also be available to him to advance before the Trial Court. Prima facie on the basis of the materials available on record, it cannot be said to be a case in which it can be said to be a case of absolute no evidence warranting interference with the proceeding. As observed above, it is premature at this stage to express any opinion on the kind of allegation made by the petitioner. It is for the Trial Court to decide as to whether on the basis of such contention/ plea of the petitioner is tenable or not. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim order operating in the proceeding stands vacated. The petitioner shall now respond to the impugned summon by way of appearing before the Trial Court, upon his appearance, it will be open for him to advance all submissions which he wanted to advance or has advanced in this proceeding. Petition dismissed