JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the cognizance / summoning order dated 30.09.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no. 3305 of 2015, State vs Manjeet Singh and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC and further to quash the consequential proceedings of aforesaid case pending in the selfsame court. 2. An FIR was lodged against eight named accused, including the applicant, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC on 15.07.2015. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted report dated 06.07.2015, as follows: The facts which have came into light on the basis of investigation conducted are that one Kuldeep Singh Payal agreed to sell off the land, who conspired with one fake Manjeet Singh, prepared fake document and got the sale deed registered. Kuldeep Singh Payal and Amit Semalti appended their signatures on the sale deed, as witnesses. Sale deed was got registered. The money was received by one Kuldeep Singh. Rajesh Kumar Tyagi (present applicant) earlier worked with Kuldeep Payal in ‘Shiv Property office’ in Jolly Grant. Writing work was done by one Kuldeep Payal in relation to plotting of 25 bighas of land. Rajesh Tyagi, although not appended his signatures in any of the documents, but he is also involved in the incident in question. 3. Rajesh Tyagi (present applicant) has, therefore, been implicated in the instant case crime no. 117 of 2015, only because once upon a time he has worked with one Kuldeep Payal in plotting of 25 bighas of land. Admittedly, according to Investigating Officer, no documents bear signatures of Rajesh Tyagi and only on the basis that he was an acquaintance and close associate of Kuldeep Payal, therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted against him. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 5. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, not laid against the present applicant, who has been implicated on mere surmises and conjectures. The only allegation against the applicant is that he worked with one Kuldeep Payal once upon a time in relation to plotting of 25 bighas of land, therefore, the Investigating Officer drew a presumption that he was also a conspirator in the crime in question. It is also admitted that the applicant has not appended his signatures in any of the documents, which is subject matter of adjudication before the court below. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 has observed in paragraph no. 28 of the said ruling as under: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charges levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 7. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case, in which the inherent jurisdiction shall be exercised in the interest of justice. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed at the admission stage itself. 9. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Cognizance / summoning order dated 30.09.2015, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 3305 of 2015, State vs Manjeet Singh and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in are hereby quashed. 10. The Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to respondent no. 2, but since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of without issuing notice to him, therefore, respondent no. 2 is granted liberty to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. [Stay application no. 1271 of 2016 also stands disposed of.]