ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following relief : “By allowing this petition Crime No.265/2006 registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.92/2007 arisen out of the aforesaid crime, pending in the Court of JMFC, Mungaoli [State of M.P. v. Mukesh and others], be quashed.” 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that one written complaint was filed by Jagram Singh (respondent No.2 herein) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) to the effect that he is an agriculturist having 40 Bighas of agricultural land. In the year 2002, 91 quintals of gram crop was kept in the godown of accused-petitioners from 3.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 and the rent of which was decided as Rs.Two per bag per month. After four months when the aforesaid Gram Crop was demanded by him it was told by accused/applicant Rakesh that entire crop had already been sold at Delhi, therefore, either value of the crop would be paid or the crop would be returned after getting it purchased again. But till filing of the complaint i.e. on 10.9.2006 neither crop was returned nor was its value to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- paid. On the basis of this FIR, Crime No.265/2006 was registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under sections 406, 407 and 420 of IPC. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as per the allegations entire crop was kept in the godown from 3.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 meaning thereby more than four years before, from the date of lodging the FIR. The offence under section 406 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. As per the provisions of section 468 of CrPC, for such kind of offence which is punishable only with three years’ imprisonment, cognizance cannot be taken by the Court after a prescribed period of limitation i.e. three years from the commission of the offence. As per the provisions of section 468 of CrPC, for such kind of offence which is punishable only with three years’ imprisonment, cognizance cannot be taken by the Court after a prescribed period of limitation i.e. three years from the commission of the offence. Because the offence was committed in the year 2002 and the complaint was made after a period of four years i.e. in the year 2006, therefore, cognizance should not have been taken by the trial Court. It is also submitted by Shri Soni, learned counsel, that one civil suit was also filed by Jagram against the applicants-accused persons. It is also submitted by Shri Soni, learned counsel, that nowhere offence under sections 407 and 420 of IPC is made out and for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC cognizance cannot be taken in view of the specific bar of limitation given under section 468 CrPC. It is also submitted that trial is still pending and charges have not been framed yet. Thus, by allowing the present petition, entire proceedings may be quashed. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, that on perusal of the facts mentioned in the complaint it is evident that many times crop was demanded by the complainant but neither it was returned not its value was paid by the accused/persons/petitioners, hence, it is a case which may be treated under section 472 CrPC. Offence was committed continuously by the petitioners-accused persons, therefore, always a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run i.e. the moment whenever payment was denied or the return of crop by the applicant. It is also submitted by Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel, that charge-sheet has been filed not only for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC but also under sections 407 and 420 of IPC and the offence under section 407 of IPC is punishable for a term which may be extended to seven years. Offence under section 420 of IPC is punishable for a term which may be extended to seven years, therefore, the provisions contained under section 468 of CrPC are not applicable. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, entire record has been perused. 6. Offence under section 420 of IPC is punishable for a term which may be extended to seven years, therefore, the provisions contained under section 468 of CrPC are not applicable. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, entire record has been perused. 6. It would be fruitful to quote here the relevant provisions contained under sections 468 and 472 of CrPC : “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. -- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be -- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 472. Continuing offence. -- In the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.” 7. Admittedly, the offence was registered under section 406 of IPC and the charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under sections 406, 407 and 420 of IPC which are as under : 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust. -- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 407. Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc. -- Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. -- Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. -- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 8. As per section 468(2)(c) of CrPC, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation i.e. three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. In this case, registered offence under section 406 of IPC is punishable for a term not exceeding three years. 9. Now, it is to be seen that whether it’s case of continuing offence falling under section 472 CrPC or not. 10. As per the written complaint it is evident that Gram crop was kept in the godown of the petitioners lastly on 27.5.2002. Then, after a period of four months said crop was demanded firstly, meaning thereby in the end of September, 2002 and since then within three years complaint had to be lodged i.e. on or before 27.9.2005 whereas it was made on 10.9.2006 i.e. near about 9-1/2 months belatedly. But on perusal of FIR, it seems that in such period of nine and a half months many times crop or its value was demanded and always accused/persons used to promise the complainant to fulfil the demand. Therefore, prima facie, it is a case of continuing offence committed under section 406 of IPC and whenever demand was made, from that date a fresh period of limitation began to run and it would be a continuing offence under section 472 of CrPC. Same principal was laid own in the case of Bairo Prasad and another v. Smt. Laxmibai Pateria, reported in 1991 CrLJ 2535 . 11. Same principal was laid own in the case of Bairo Prasad and another v. Smt. Laxmibai Pateria, reported in 1991 CrLJ 2535 . 11. Now, as per the second submission put forth by the petitioners’ learned counsel, no offence is made out under sections 407 and 420 of IPC. 12. On perusal of the FIR, it clearly indicates that the entire crop of Gram was kept by the complainant in the godown of the petitioners, after entering into the contract to pay the rent but the same was not returned on demand. Prima facie, clearly it’s a case of criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 of IPC and because the offence was committed by the warehouse keeper/petitioners, therefore, certainly prima facie ingredients of dection 407 of IPC are present. 13. Offence under section 420 of IPC is certainly not made out because crop was kept in the warehouse/godown of the accused/petitioners, by the complainant voluntarily on the basis of payment of rent. Nowhere it is evident that the complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver his property by the accused persons/petitioners. The Kerala High Court in the case of K.C. Thomas v. Avirah Varghese, reported in 1974 CrLJ 207, has held that in case of cheating the dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, the person who comes into possession of the movable property receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract. 14. The difference between two crimes i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating has been very well defined in the case of Vadivel v. Packialakshmi, reported in 1996 CrLJ 300 and in Narsinghdas Marwari v. Emperor, reported in AIR 1928 Nag. 113. 15. In the aforesaid premises, it is clear that prima facie case under sections 406 and 407 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, however, no offence under section 420 of IPC is made out. 16. Apart that, more than three years’ imprisonment is prescribed for the offence punishable under section 407 of IPC, therefore, as per the provisions contained under section 468(3) of CrPC the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment. 16. Apart that, more than three years’ imprisonment is prescribed for the offence punishable under section 407 of IPC, therefore, as per the provisions contained under section 468(3) of CrPC the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment. In this case, offence under section 407 of IPC is punishable upto the extent of seven years, therefore, cognizance also taken for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC by the trial Court was valid and no illegality was committed in doing so. 17. In view of the foregoing, by allowing this petition in part, all the accused-petitioners are hereby discharged of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Trial Court is directed to frame charges under sections 406 and 407 of IPC against all the accused/petitioners and proceed accordingly. ............. 2015(2) JLJ 55 Jarat Kumar Jain, J. Aditya Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.382 of 2013 (Indore); Decided on 9.12.2014. Nidhi Bohara for petitioner. Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420, 406, 409, 467 and 468 -- offence under -- application to quash FIR -- applicant posted under M.P. Rojgar Guarantee Parishad on post of Sub-Engineer -- Collector received a complaint regarding misappropriation of money in Gram Panchayat -- enquiry conducted by project officer and submitted its report -- it is not specifically mentioned in report that applicant committed any offence -- it is not included in duties and responsibilities of applicant to verify attendance and identity of labours -- enquiry report and documents even if accepted do not disclose offence against applicant -- application allowed -- FIR registered against applicant quashed -- proceedings initiated on basis of FIR are also quashed. Held : I am of the considered view that if the final report and the documents even if accpeted in its entirety, do not in any manner disclose the commission of offence under sections 420, 406, 409, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code against the present applicant. Consequently, the application filed by applicant under section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 2013 CrLJ 411 (SC) discussed. Consequently, the application filed by applicant under section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 2013 CrLJ 411 (SC) discussed. naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420] 406] 409] 467 rFkk 468 & ds v/khu vijk/k & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, vkosnu & vkosnd e-iz- jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj”kn~ ds v/khu lc&bathfuj ds in ij rSukr fd;k x;k & dyDVj us xzke iapk;r esa /ku ds nqfoZfu;kstu ds laca/k esa f’kdk;r izkIr dh & ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p lapkfyr dh xbZ rFkk viuh fjiksVZ izLrqr dh & fjiksVZ esa ;g fo’ks”k :i ls mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k fd vkosnd us dksbZ vijk/k fd;k & etnwjksa dh gkftjh rFkk igpku dks lR;kfir djuk vkosnd ds drZO; rFkk mrjnkf;Roksa esa ‘kkfey ugha & tk¡p fjiksVZ rFkk nLrkost Hkh ;fn Lohdkj fd, tkrs gSa] vkosnd ds fo:} vijk/k izdV ugha djrs & vkonsu eatwj & vkosnd ds fo:} jftLVMZ izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr dh tkrh gS & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij izkjaHk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh Hkh vfHk[kafMr dh tkrh gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % esjh ;g lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd ;fn vafre fjiksVZ rFkk nLrkost Hkh ;fn iw.kZ :i ls Lohdkj fd, tkrs gSa] fdlh Hkh jhfr esa mifLFkr vkonsd ds fo:} naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 420] 406] 409] 467] rFkk 468 ds v/khu vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk izdV ugha djrs gSaA ifj.kker% naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu izLrqr vkosnu Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA 2013 lhvkj ,y ts 411 ¼,l lh½ foosfprA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½ JUDGMENT 1. The applicant has filed thisapplication under section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR in regard to Crime No. 198/2011 registered at Police Station Khategaon, District Dewas for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 of the Penal Code. 2. Facts giving rise to this application are that at the relevant time, applicant was Sub-Engineer in M.P. Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, Jila Panchayat, Dewas, and was posted in Khategaon, District Dewas. Collector, Dewas received a complaint regarding misappropriation of money in the Gram Panchayat, Dudwas, Tahsil Khategaon, District Dewas in the scheme viz. Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Yojna. On the direction of Collector, Dewas, the Project Officer, District Panchayat, Dewas conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Collector. Collector, Dewas received a complaint regarding misappropriation of money in the Gram Panchayat, Dudwas, Tahsil Khategaon, District Dewas in the scheme viz. Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Yojna. On the direction of Collector, Dewas, the Project Officer, District Panchayat, Dewas conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Collector. The Project Officer found that Gram Panchayat Dudwas fraudulently registered attendance of four dead persons i.e. Smt. Bonabai w/o Bodar Shah; Smt. Gulabbai w/o Gabulal; Ibrahim Khan and Janibai w/o Kodar on muster roll and it has been shown that payment has been made to these dead persons. In the report it was found that Surpanch Omprakash and Incharge Secretary Nazar Khan have misappropriated the money and SDO, Rural Engineering Services, Bagli and Sub-Engineer (present applicant) have issued the completion certificate. On this basis, Crime No.198/2011 was registered at Police Station Khategaon, District Dewas against Surpanch Omprakash, Secretary Nazar Khan and applicant Aditya Singh. Being aggrieved with this, applicant has filed this petition on the ground of nondisclosure of commission of offence against him. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the case is registered on the basis of enquiry report of Project Officer. In this report, there is no allegation against the applicant that he misappropriated the amount or he has committed any forgery for the purposes of cheating. In the report it is mentioned that the SDO Rural Engineering Services, Bagli and Sub-Engineer (present applicant) after evaluating the work issued the completion certificate, but it is nowhere mentioned that it was the duty of the Sub Engineer to verify the attendance and identity of the labours. 4. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of State Government issued the circular (Annexure A-3) in which the duties and responsibilities of Sub-Engineer are defined. It is clear from this circular that duties and responsibilities of Sub-Engineer are in regard to technical advise and supervision of work, but it is nowhere defined that Sub-Engineer will verify the muster roll and the attendance of labours. 5. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that in the final report it is nowhere mentioned that any amount was entrusted to the applicant which he misappropriated or he has committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating. 5. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that in the final report it is nowhere mentioned that any amount was entrusted to the applicant which he misappropriated or he has committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating. Thus, reading the FIR in its entirety, no offence under sections 420, 406, 409, 467 and 468 of Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. Thus, the FIR against the present applicant is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned order and submits that it is the duty of Sub-Engineer to supervise the work and he has issued the certificate that the payment has been made as per muster roll. Therefore, applicant is liable along with Surpanch and Secretary. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. 8. The FIR is registered on the basis of enquiry report of Project Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dewas. In this report, there is no allegation against the present applicant that he has misappropriated the Government money entrusted to him. It is also not mentioned that the applicant has committed any forgery. In the report, the allegation against the present applicant is as under:- ^^vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh xzk-;k- lsok ckxyh ,oa mi;a=h }kjk dk;Z dk ewY;kadu dj iw.kZr% izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k x;kA eLVj ij vafdr etnwj la[;k ds vuqlkj dk;Z fd;k x;kA** Thus, it is clear that the Project Officer in his report has not specifically mentioned that the applicant has committed any offence. 9. 9. Now, I have considered the circular issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the State Government in which the duties and responsibilities of the Sub-Engineer are defined, as under:- ^^mi;a=h ds nkf;Ro & mi;a=h lgk;d ;a=h ds izfr iw.kZ :i ls ftEesnkj gksxkA mi;a=h dk nkf;Ro xzkeh.k {ks= dh vko’;drk vuq:i dk;ksZ dk izkjafHkd izLrko xzkelHkk ls vuqeksfnr djkus ds mijkar losZ dj izkDdyu rS;kj djds mldh Lohd`fr l{ke vf/kdkjh ls izkIr djus rFkk dk;Z&LFky ij ys&vkmV nsdj izkjaHk djkus ls ysdj le;≤ ij fujh{k.k] i;Zos{k.k ,oa ewY;kadu djrs gq, iw.kZr;k izek.k&i= tkjh djkus rd dk gSA mlds }kjk fuEu nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu fd;k tk,xk %& ¼1½ vius {ks= ds varxZr vkus okyh lHkh xzke iapk;rksa esa izpfyr dk;ksZ dh HkkSfrd ,oa forh; izxfr dk v|ru tkudkjh j[kukA ¼2½ {ks= ds vko’;drkvksa ds vuq:i laHkkfor fuekZ.k dk;ksZ ds izkDdyu ekufp= rS;kj djuk ,oa l{ke vf/kdkjh ls rduhdh vuqeksnu izkIr djukA ¼3½ Lohd`fr fuekZ.k dk;ksZ ds fy, dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh ls eLVj jksy izkIr dj fuekZ.k LFky ij mudh miyC/krk lqfuf’pr djukA ¼4½ Lohd`r ekufp= ,oa izkDdyu ds vuqlkj ys&vkmV nsdj dk;Z izkjaHk djkukA ¼5½ fuekZ.k dk;ksZ dk le;≤ ij fujh{k.k dj xq.kork lqfuf’pr djuk rFkk xzke iapk;r lfpo] esV] rduhdh lgk;d dks fuekZ.k dk;Z dh ckjhfd;ksa ls voxr djkrs gq, rduhdh ekxZn’kZu iznku djukA ¼6½ fuekZ.k dk;ksZ dk lkIrkfgd ewY;kadu eki&iqfLrdk esa vafdr djuk ,oa lgk;d ;a=h ls lR;kiu djukA ¼7½ thodkMZ/kkjh Jfedksa }kjk fd, x, dk;Z dh etnwjh dk 15 fnol esa Hkqxrku lqfuf’pr djukA ¼8½ dk;Z dh izxfr ds vk/kkj ij mi;ksfxrk izek.k&i= rS;kj djuk rFkk lgk;d ;a=h ls lR;kiu djokdj ftyk@tuin iapk;r dks miyC/k djkukA ¼9½ le;≤ ij HkkSfrd izxfr ds vk/kkj ij fofHkUu pj.kksa ¼izkjaHk] e/; ,oa var½ esa dk;Z gsrq QksVkxzkQh djkdj mldk fjdkMZ j[kukA ¼10½ dk;Z@iw.kZ gksus ij dk;Ziw.kZrk izek.k&i= ,oa ,dhd`r izksVksdkWy dh tkudkjh rS;kj dj l{ke vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr djukA ¼11½ mi;a=h }kjk lIrkg esa de ls de pkj fnu dk nkSjk dj dk;ksZ dk i;Zos{k.k fd;k tk,A mi;a=h lIrkg esa mlds dk;Z{ks= esa vkus okyh lHkh xzke iapk;rksa esa de ls de ,d ckj fujh{k.k vo’; djsaA mi;a=h ds lsDVj esa vkus okyh xzke iapk;rksa ds fy, lkIrkfgd fujh{k.k dk jksLVj lgk;d ;a=h ,oa dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh }kjk {ks= esa py jgs dk;ksZ dh izxzfr ds n`f”Vxr rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA mi;a=h dks bl lsDVj dk ikyu djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd os bls lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r dks lwfpr djsA Hkze.k mijkar mi;a=h dk ;k=k Hkrk fcy lgk;d ;a=h }kjk lR;kfir fd;k tk,xkA** Thus, the duties and responsibilities are in regard to technical advise and supervision of work, but it is not included that Sub-Engineer will verify the attendance and identity of the labours. 10. After registration of the criminal case, the Sub-Engineers submitted their representation before the Commissioner, M.P. State Rojgar Guarantee Parishad. The Commissioner vide letter dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure A-5) stated as under:- ^^vH;kosnu esa nh xbZ tkudkjh ls dsoy e`r O;fDr;ksa dk uke eLVj jksy esa vafdr dj Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk ik, tkus ij eLVj jksy la/kkj.kdrkZ fdz;kUo;u ,tsalh ftlds }kjk eLVj jksy esa vafdr etnwjksa dh gkftjh lR;kfir dj Hkqxrku gsrq ^^ikl vkMZj** yxk;k gS rFkk etnwjh ds Hkqxrku gsrq psd tkjh fd;k gSA buds vfrfjDr cSad@iksLV vkWfQl dk og vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ftlds }kjk [kkr/kkjh ds gLrk{kj lR;kfir dj e`r O;fDr;ksa ds uke ls QthZ jkf’k dk Hkqxrku dj fdz;kUo;u ,tsalh dks lg;ksx fd;k x;k gS] dks nLrkostksa dk ijh{k.k dj mrjnk;h Bgjk, tkus ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A mi;a=h Jh vkfnR; flag lsaxj ds }kjk vkidks izLrqr fd, x, vH;kosnu dk ijh{k.k dj vkijkf/kd izdj.k okfil fy, tkus ij leqfpr fopkj&foe’kZ djus dk d”V djsaA** 11. From the above letter it reveals that the Commissioner was also of the view that if the name of dead persons are on muster roll and it is shown that wages were paid to such persons, then the Sub-Engineer is not liable for that act. 12. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra v. State of NCT Delhi [ 2013 CrLJ 411 (SC)= AIR 2013 SC 506 ], held as under : “15.The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of he trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.” 13. With the above discussion, I am of the considered view that if the final report and the documents even if accpeted in its entirety, do not in any manner disclose the commission of offence under sections 420, 406, 409, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code against the present applicant. 14. Consequently, the application filed by applicant under section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR registered in regard to Crime No.198/2011 at Police Station Khategaon, District Dewas against the present applicant is hereby quashed. The proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR against the applicant are also quashed. But the proceedings be continued against the other coaccused Omprakash (Surpanch) and Nazar Khan (Secretary). Miscellaneous Criminal Case stands disposed of. .............