ORDER: 1. This criminal petition has been taken out by the accused in C.C.No.758 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The petitioner worked as B4 Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Kurnool from 2000 to 2005. The 2nd respondent-Syed Maqbul Basha worked as Lighting Superintendent in Engineering Section of Kurnool Municipal Corporation. He took two policies, viz., Jeevan Mitra policy bearing No.651430547, dt.11-07-2000 and Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No.652681498, dt.27-02-2002 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively. Premiums under the said policies were being deducted from his salary. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was on medical leave for some time and thereafter, he was placed under suspension. According to him, insurance premiums from his salary to a tune of Rs.24,792/- were deducted but were not sent to the insurance companies. The petitioner allegedly misappropriated the insurance premiums deducted from the salary of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. He presented a complainant before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Kurnool II Town P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The S.H.O., Kurnool II Town P.S., received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.297 of 2009 for the offence under Section 409 IPC. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented by the Inspector of Police, Kurnool II Town P.S. on 29-5-2010. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.758 of 2010. Hence this petition by the accused with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused sand learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.758 of 2010. Hence this petition by the accused with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused sand learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant filed complaint under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Consumer Case No.175 of 2007 on the file of the District Forum, Kurnool and the said CC came to be allowed in part directing the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool to pay non-remitting salary savings scheme premium to the complainant under both the insurance policies within sixty days and that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant failed to plead any lapses on the part of the petitioner before the District Forum, Kurnool and therefore, it is impermissible for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant to turn around and commence criminal prosecution afresh. He would also submit that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant initiated proceedings against the petitioner to harass him and see that he is defamed in the society. Learned counsel took me extensively to the observations made by the District Forum, Kurnool in C.C.No.175 of 2007. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant submits that the petitioner was the concerned person to send insurance premium after deducting the same from the salary of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and as the petitioner having deducted insurance premium from the ssalary of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant failed to send the premiums to the insurer and thereupon, the policies came to be lapsed and that the conduct of the petitioner in withholding the insurance premium amounts to misappropriation, rendering himself liable for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 6. Before dwelling deep into the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to note the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (i) Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr. (i) Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. (ii) In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Supreme Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (iii) In State of Karnataka V. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 the Supreme Court observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. (iv) In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. " (v) In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr. P. C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The broad guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard 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. The broad guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard 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 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 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 Act concerned, 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.” (vi) In Roy V. D. v. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590 , the Supreme Court observed that power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (vii) In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. (vii) In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court observed that it would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action, which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/ continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. (viii) A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2008 SC 251 has examined scope and ambit of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and observed that the inherent powers under section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court. (ix) In State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa 2002(3) SCC 89 , the Supreme Court held that in proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code. 7. It is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant filed C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool. Non-remittance of insurance premium was the issue in the said consumer case. Before the District Forum, the Municipal Corporation pleaded that the premiums under the two policies taken by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant have not been deducted due to mistake. For better appreciation, I may refer paras (9) to (12) of the order passed by the District Forum, Kurnool in C.C.No.175 of 2007, which read as hereunder:- “9. Before the District Forum, the Municipal Corporation pleaded that the premiums under the two policies taken by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant have not been deducted due to mistake. For better appreciation, I may refer paras (9) to (12) of the order passed by the District Forum, Kurnool in C.C.No.175 of 2007, which read as hereunder:- “9. The complainant was kept under suspension as per order in RC 5668/03-E1 dated 31-10-2003 by opposite party No.1. The copy of the suspension order was Ex.B15. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No.1 not to deduct the monthly premiums for two policies under salary savings scheme and remit it to opposite party No.2, because the premiums would be paid by him separately. The copy of the letter was Ex.B16 dated 03-05-2005. So from May 2005 onwards there was no salary savings scheme to his two policies. However the opposite party No.2 under Ex.B.17 addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 that they had not received the premium amount for the two policies for the months of January to May 2003, August to October 2003 and April 2004 under policy No.651430547 and for the months of January 2004 and April 2004 and January to May 2003 and August to December 2003 under policy No.652681498. Therefore the complainant was on medical leave for some time and half pay leave on some time and was kept under suspension for certain period and he himself addressed a letter to opposite party No.1 not to send the monthly premium from out of his salary under the two policies under Ex.B.16. There was no salary savings scheme mode under the two policies from May 2005 onwards to the complainant. At the time of payment of subsistence allowance or the leave salary, the opposite party No.1 had its duty until they received Ex.B 16 to deduct the premium from out of his salary. But the opposite party No.1 admitted their own mistake in not deducting the premiums. 10. The complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 to opposite party No.1 that it had not remitted the premiums towards his policies to opposite party No.2 and hence the policies were lapsed and thus the opposite party No.1 was liable. But the opposite party No.1 admitted their own mistake in not deducting the premiums. 10. The complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 to opposite party No.1 that it had not remitted the premiums towards his policies to opposite party No.2 and hence the policies were lapsed and thus the opposite party No.1 was liable. Ex.A2 and A3 were copies of written notices to opposite party No.2 He filed Ex.A6 , Ex.A7, Ex.A8, copy of the status reports issued by opposite party No.2 regarding the two policies with default months. He filed Ex.A9, Ex.A10, two letters for two policies received from opposite party No.2 for revival of the policies requesting the complainant to remit the premium dues for months of February 2005 to November, 2005 along with interest. Ex.A11, A12 xerox copies of the letters addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1 that the two policies were lapsed and requesting to take necessary action against the staff in the opposite party No.1. Ex.A13 was another xerox copy of the letter addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ex.A14, Ex.A15, A16, A17, A18, A19 were xerox copy of letters addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1. 11. The complainant examined PW.1, Jr. Assistant in the Establishment Wing in Engineering Section, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool who had stated that the complainant had two policies under salary savings scheme and premiums of Rs.1,260/-, and Rs.1,121/- per month from out of the salary was remitted to the section. From October 2000 to April 2005 the monthly premiums wee deducted for Jeevan Mitra policy and from April, 2002 to 2005 the monthly premium for Jeevan Anand policy. The PW.1 admitted that the complainant was kept under suspension since dated 21-07-2003 and deduction were made till he requested to stop the deduction in May, 2005 and therefore there was deduction from the salary from May, 2005. Even though he was kept under suspension the subsistence allowance was paid in February, 2004 under Ex.B.19. The medical leave salary for 149 days was also paid. The subsistence allowance was also paid in March, 2004 for the period from 19-10-2003 to 29-02-2004 under Ex.B.20. They were drawn under the separate bills. Therefore, in these circumstances the opposite party No.1 admitted their own mistake in their counter for non payment under the salary savings scheme to the two policies of the complainant till May 2005. The subsistence allowance was also paid in March, 2004 for the period from 19-10-2003 to 29-02-2004 under Ex.B.20. They were drawn under the separate bills. Therefore, in these circumstances the opposite party No.1 admitted their own mistake in their counter for non payment under the salary savings scheme to the two policies of the complainant till May 2005. It was also a negligent part of the complainant while drawing the leave salary and subsistence allowance without enquiry about the two premiums under the salary savings scheme. Thus the opposite party No.2 was not liable because it was its duty to receive the premiums and credit in the account of the complainant. Hence the opposite party No.2 was not liable. A negligency and deficiency of service was only on the part of the opposite party No.1. Ex.B21 and Ex.B22 were the status report of two policies is filed by opposite party No.2. 12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 only to pay non remitting salary savings scheme premium amount to the complainant under both policies for the months in due under the two policies within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.” 8. The finding recorded by the competent authority clearly indicates that the insurance premiums were not sent to the insurer due to mistake. Therefore, the accusation levelled against the petitioner that he misappropriated the insurance premiums deducted from the salary of the petitioner has no substance. In the given facts and circumstances, prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.758 of 2010 for the offence under Section 409 IPC amounts to abuse of process of Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.758 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.