ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed with a prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding/prosecution arising out of Chouka P.S. Case No. 63 of 2015 [G.R. No. 1077 of 2015], pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. The instant F.I.R. being Chouka P.S. Case No. 63 of 2015 correspondent to G.R. No. 107 of 2015 has been instituted on the basis of the complaint which was sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been alleged that informant is the Manager of Lucky Coke Manufacturer and is involved in business affairs of the Firm. The Firm has its office at Ratanji Road, Tikiya Mohall, Purana Bazar, Dhansar, Dhanbad. The accused and the complainant were the old acquaintance. In the year 2008, the accused malafidely visited the complainant's office and taking him in good faith, asked for supply of coke on credit basis. He further assured to bear legal and other expenses in case the payment is not made within time. On the assurance, the informant supplied coke amounting to Rs.43,11,121/-. On completion of stipulated time of three months in December, 2008, the informant requested to clear the dues but the accused did not pay any heed. Till 2015, the complainant made regular request over mail and telephone but the accused persons out-rightly denied to make payment and further misbehaved and threatened to face dire consequences if asked for payment of dues. 4. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the continuance of criminal proceeding on the basis of FIR has seriously contended that he has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of false and concocted allegation that he is he is partner of M/s. Kewal Metalik, though the petitioner is neither partner of the Firm nor he has got any concern with the said Firm. It is further submitted that it is a business transaction between the informant and accused no. 1 M/s. Kewal Metalik and petitioner has been dragged only to harass him. It is further argued that there is delay of seven years in lodging the complaint and no plausible explanation has been given. Petitioner has made representation before the S.P., Seraikella – Kharsawan as also before Officer-in-charge of Chowka Police Station. 1 M/s. Kewal Metalik and petitioner has been dragged only to harass him. It is further argued that there is delay of seven years in lodging the complaint and no plausible explanation has been given. Petitioner has made representation before the S.P., Seraikella – Kharsawan as also before Officer-in-charge of Chowka Police Station. Learned counsel further submitted that no case is made out as alleged in the instant FIR as there is no entrustment with any property nor mens rea at the time of making alleged inducement and the accused had no intention to cheat. Learned counsel submits that neither there is allegation of causing hurt to the informant nor any allegation of wrongful restraining the informant. Thus none of the Section mentioned in the FIR is attracted against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that grounds taken for quashing entire criminal proceeding are not tenable. It is pointed out that there is ample material to show complicity of the petitioner and as such the trial may be proceeded for the ends of justice. 6. I have gone through the rival submission of the parties as well as documents available on record. No ground of malicious prosecution or vengeance has been brought on record nor the petitioner has been able to discard prima-facie materials against him. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the issue fell before the Apex Court as to when the criminal proceeding can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Court held as under in paragraphs 68, 71 and 103 of the said Judgment: “68. Mr. Chidambaram took a strong objection stating that these untested allegations are introduced only to prejudice the court and, therefore, the court should refrain from considering these allegations. We may straightway say that we do not take note of these new allegations as we are not called upon at this stage to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the first information report are reliable or not and thereupon to render a finding whether any of the allegations is proved. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. 71. While Mr. Rajinder Sachar and Mr. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. 71. While Mr. Rajinder Sachar and Mr. Garg took much pain to show that the reasons given by the High Court in respect of each of the instances are not legally sustainable, Mr. Parasaran submitted a tabular statement by listing out each of the instances of the alleged corruption indicted in the complaint, the explanation given in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit related thereto and the reply in the rejoinder and urged that the allegations in the FIR are nothing but a conglomeration of calumny and falsehood. As the entire matter stands only at the stage of the registration of the case and the investigation has not at all proceeded with on account of the order of stay granted by the High Court, we do not intend or propose to examine the truth or otherwise of each of the instances in snippet form and thereafter string them together and express any opinion either way, since in our view any such opinion may affect the case of either party or cripple the course of investigation. 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 according to its whim or caprice.” 7. In the case at hand, as the entire matter stands only at the stage of the registration of the case and the investigation is going on, I do not intend or propose to examine the truth or otherwise of each of the instances in snippet form and thereafter string them together and express any opinion either way, since in my considered opinion any such opinion may affect the case of either party or cripple the course of investigation. 8. In the circumstances and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P. and accordingly, same stands dismissed. 8. In the circumstances and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P. and accordingly, same stands dismissed. The trial court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Petitioner is also at liberty to raise all such points at the appropriate time.