Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Present Criminal Misc.Application under Section 482 has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused No. 5 – Bejan K. Bodhanwala to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report being CR No. I-563 of 2005 registered with MGVCL Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 1.01. By way of amendment it is also further prayed to quash and set aside the impugned charge-sheet No. 181 of 2007 dtd. 26/9/2007 filed in the aforesaid First Information Report against the petitioner now being Criminal Case No. 20026 of 2007. 2.00. That First Information Report being CR No. I-563 of 2005 came to be lodged by the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, with the MGVCL Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and 5 other Directors of the Amod Industries Limited, for the offences alleged to have taken place during the period between 2002 and 2003 alleging inter-alia that 353 KVA Transformers which were purchased by the complainant Board were sent to the Company named Amod Industries Limited for repair which the Company has not returned after repair and thereby caused loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,15,57,398.62 ps. and thereby committed offence, as alleged. It is required to be noted that before filing of the aforesaid First Information Report all the accused persons were served with the notice by the complainant, inclusive of the petitioner and it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that in reply to the said notice, it was specifically pointed out to the original complainant that as such he has already resigned as a Director of the Company on 25/5/1999 i.e. much prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the same the petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the impugned First Information Report and even thereafter the petitioner has been charge-sheeted and case against the petitioner is registered as Criminal Case No. 20026 of 2007. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned First Information Report as well as Chargesheet, petitioner - accused No. 5 has preferred present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.00. Mr. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned First Information Report as well as Chargesheet, petitioner - accused No. 5 has preferred present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.00. Mr. Bomi Sethna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioner has not committed the offence, as alleged. It is submitted that in the First Information Report the offence is committed during the period between 2002 and 2003, however, the petitioner has already resigned as a Director of the accused No. 1 Company on 25/5/1999 i.e. much prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence. It is submitted that though the aforesaid was pointed out in the reply to the notice by the complainant, the petitioner has been implicated in the impugned First Information Report as an accused. Therefore, it is submitted that at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the petitioner was not the director of the accused No. 1 Company and therefore, there is no question of committing any offence by the petitioner, as alleged. 3.01. Mr. Bomi Sethna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such to make out a case of cheating and to attract the provisions of Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be inducement in persona. It is submitted that as such there is no element of allegation as regards any overt act or omission on the part of the petitioner. 3.02. Mr. Bomi Sethna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the Transformers were given for the purpose of repair during the period between 2002-2003 i.e. much after the petitioner had resigned, hence, there is no entrustment as envisaged under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that in any case the dispute is purely of civil nature in respect of which civil proceedings have been initiated in the year 2005, however subsequently the same is given block of criminal proceedings by lodging the impugned First Information Report. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition. 4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 – original complainant. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition. 4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 – original complainant. It is submitted that having found prima facie case against the petitioner also, he has been charge-sheeted and therefore, it is requested not to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he can prefer an application for discharge before the concerned Court. 4.01. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 – original complainant has submitted that charge against the petitioner is that right from the beginning with a view to cheat the Complainant Board the transformers were not manufactured as per the specifications and transformers of inferior quality had been supplied. It is submitted that at the time when the contract was entered into, the petitioner was very much a director of the Company and hence the charge is that right from beginning there was an intention to cheat the complainant Board, provisions of sec.420 of Indian Penal Code are clearly attracted. 4.02. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 – original complainant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 1 by submitting that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only when no other alternative remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5.00. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order considering the fact that subsequently after investigation the petitioner has been charge-sheeted having found prima facie case against the petitioner. 6.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned First Information Report as well as charge-sheet papers filed against the petitioner. 6.01. 6.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned First Information Report as well as charge-sheet papers filed against the petitioner. 6.01. Considering the impugned First Information Report it appears that the offence is alleged to have committed during the period between the year 2002 and 2003 and the allegation in the First Information Report is that the 353 transformers which were given for the purpose of repairs, have not been returned after repair and thereby there is loss caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,15,57,398.62 ps. Therefore, the offence alleged in the First Information Report is for the period between the year 2002 and 2003. It is not in dispute that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has resigned as a Director of the Company on 25/5/1999 i.e. much prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence. It is also required to be noted that at this stage that even prior to lodging the First Information Report when the petitioner was served with the notice by the original complainant, it was specifically pointed out that he had already resigned as a Director on 25/5/1999 and despite the same the petitioner has been implicated in the impugned First Information Report as an accused. Looking to the impugned First Information Report as such there are no allegations as regards any overt act or omission on the part of the petitioner and except that the petitioner was the director at the relevant time, there are no other allegations against the petitioner. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had already resigned much prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence, would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and it would be abuse of process of law and Court. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and merely because during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner has been charge-sheeted, the same is no ground not to exercise powers under sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even considering the charge-sheet papers, it appears that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. 7. Even considering the charge-sheet papers, it appears that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. 7. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds and the impugned First Information Report being CR No. I-563 of 2005 registered with MGVCL Police Station, Vadodara against the petitioner and the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid First Information Report being Charge-sheet No. 181 of 2007 dtd.26/9/2007 is quashed and set aside QUA petitioner only, however, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original complainant against the other accused persons and the trial against the other accused persons be proceeded further by the learned trial Court in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P