JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 03.09.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 143 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1374 of 2012. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that a complaint petition was filed before the learned C.J.M. Giridih, which was subsequently sent for registration of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged alleging therein that on 08.09.2009 petitioner and others came to the village of the informant and offered the villagers to install the towers of Asian Net at their lands for which they will get a sum of Rs. 1695/- per month as rent and Rs. 800/- per month towards maintenance charges to the villagers. The petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards security money from the villagers, who are interested in installing the towers of the company at their lands. Eight villagers have accepted the offer and deposited the said security amount with the petitioner. Thereafter, all the eight persons were taken to Bokaro for executing the agreement with the company, where it was assured by the Company that the Asian Net will be installed at their lands within a period of three months. After lapse of three months, when the tower of Asian Net was not installed by the company, all the persons approached the petitioner, who assured them that the Asian Net will be installed within 8 days. It is further alleged that after repeated demands when the Asian Net was not installed by the Company, they demanded for refund of their security money from the petitioner, upon which the petitioner gave separate cheques to all of them and asked them to deposit the same after three months. It has been alleged that the time limit of cheque has been lapsed and when the petitioner came to the village of the informant, they demanded for refund of their money but he denied to refund the same and also abused them. Hence, the informant lodged the instant complaint against the petitioner. 4. It has been alleged that the time limit of cheque has been lapsed and when the petitioner came to the village of the informant, they demanded for refund of their money but he denied to refund the same and also abused them. Hence, the informant lodged the instant complaint against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is totally innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the complaint was lodged after lapse of three years from the date of occurrence and no reasons has been assigned by the informant of such delay. Learned counsel submits that no agreement was executed between the petitioner and informant with respect to installation of tower or the money taken by the petitioner from the informant and in absence of any agreement or money receipt, it cannot be believed that the informant and others have given advance money to the petitioner. He further submits that from bare reading of the F.I.R. it is evident that the offence u/s. 138 N.I. Act is not made out against the petitioner, since neither any legal notice was sent to the petitioner nor any bank receipt showing dishonor of the cheques is annexed to the complaint and the numbers of cheques of have not been mentioned in the complaint, which was alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the informant. Learned counsel further alleged that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih passed the impugned order taking cognizance dated 03.09.2015, without considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, merely because the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the continuance of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the order dated 03.09.2015 is liable to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the charges leveled against him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a case of committing fraud and cheating by the petitioner upon the poor villagers. From the complaint it is evident that the petitioner had offered the informant and others to install the tower of Asian Net and in lieu thereof, offered the villagers to get Rs. 1695/- per month as rent and Rs. From the complaint it is evident that the petitioner had offered the informant and others to install the tower of Asian Net and in lieu thereof, offered the villagers to get Rs. 1695/- per month as rent and Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance charges. The petitioner has demanded as sum of Rs. 50,000/- from each of the villagers, who intends to install the said tower, as security money for installing the towers at their lands. They villagers upon acceptance of the offer had deposited the aforesaid with the petitioner but when after lapse of few months the towers were not installed at their lands, the informant and others enquired about the same from the petitioner upon which the petitioner assured that the towers will be installed in next 8 days. It is further submitted that when after repeated request the towers were not installed, all the persons demanded for refund of the money, upon which the petitioner has given different cheques to the villagers but the cheques on presentation with their bankers dishonored. Thereafter, the villagers asked the petitioner to refund their money but this time the petitioner denied to refund the money and abused all the persons. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the documents available on record, I am of the view that no ground of malicious prosecution or vengeance has been brought on record nor has the petitioner been able to discard the prima facie materials against him. 7. In the case of Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663 in Para 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "In proceedings instituted on criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein." 8. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein." 8. In the case of N. Soundaram vs. P.K. Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616 in Para 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima-facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance." 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the discussions made above and in view of the judicial pronouncements, I do not find any merit in the instant Cr.M.P. and accordingly, the 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 stage.