JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 112 of 2014 dated 15.11.2014 registered at Police Station CID Shimla for offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(1)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner is working as Junior Engineer at I.P.H. Section Taliyan, Sub Division Kandror, District Bilaspur. FIR has been registered against the petitioner. The contents of FIR constitute prima facie case against the petitioner. Petitioner has prepared bills, vouchers and hand-sheets fraudulently, which has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the State. The bills were got verified from the shops. The shopkeepers have denied that the material was supplied by them. Few of the bills have neither been signed nor any date is mentioned on them. Petitioner has tempered with the bills and vouchers. He has prepared fake bills. 3. Petitioner has placed on record affidavits. The veracity of the affidavits would be gone into during the trial of the case. It is an afterthought. Petitioner has rather tried to influence the witnesses by coercing them to sworn in affidavits in his favour. Statements of the witnesses, whose affidavits have been placed on record, were recorded in the year 2014 and now the petitioner has obtained affidavits from them in the year 2015. 4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 have laid the following steps to be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C: “(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 5. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.P. Subhash vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and others, (2013) 11 SCC 559 have reiterated that where complaint prima facie makes out commission of offence, High Court in ordinary course should not invoke its powers to quash such proceedings, except in rate and compelling circumstances. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. The legal position regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in relation to pending criminal proceedings including FIRs under investigation is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Suffice it to say that in cases where the complaint lodged by the complainant whether before a Court or before the jurisdictional police station makes out the commission of an offence, the High Court would not in the ordinary course invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances enumerated in the decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335. 8. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State, NCT of Delhi, 1999 3 SCC 259 where this Court observed: "...If factual foundation for the offence has been laid down in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence." 9. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 1 SCC 691 where this Court said: "...The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. 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 Section 482 of the Code." 10. Decisions of this Court in V.Y. Jose and Anr. 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 Section 482 of the Code." 10. Decisions of this Court in V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2009 3 SCC 78 and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley etc., 2011 3 SCC 351 reiterate the above legal position. 11. Coming to the case at hand it cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or that the same do not prima facie allege the complicity of the persons accused of committing the same. The complaint filed by the appellant sets out the relevant facts and alleges that the documents have been forged and fabricated only to be used as genuine to make a fraudulent and illegal claim over the land owned by complainant. The following passage from the complaint is relevant in this regard: "..Thus evidently these two sale deeds being produced by GWL i.e. 1551/1922 dated: 10th March 1922 and 1575/1922 dated 27th June 1922 are forged and fabricated and after making the false documents they were used as genuine to make fraudulent and illegal claim over our lands and go grab them. The representatives of GWL Properties with dishonest motive of grabbing our lands having indulged in committing forgery and fabrication of documents and with the aid of the forged documents are constantly attempting to criminally trespass into our lawful possessed lands and have been threatening and intimidating the staffs of our company in an illegal manner endangering life and damaging the land. The representatives of GWL properties also have been making false statements to the Government Revenue Authorities by producing these forged and fabricated documents with dishonest intention to enter their name in the Government Records. The present Director-in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the GWL Properties Limited is Mrs. V.M. Chhabria and all the above mentioned acts and commission of offences have been committed with the knowledge of the Directors of GWL Properties Ltd., and connivance for which they are liable. Mr. A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma representing M/s GWL Properties Limited has registered a civil suit in the District Court, Chengalpet using the forged documents. Mr. Satish, Manager (Legal), Mr. V.M. Chhabria and all the above mentioned acts and commission of offences have been committed with the knowledge of the Directors of GWL Properties Ltd., and connivance for which they are liable. Mr. A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma representing M/s GWL Properties Limited has registered a civil suit in the District Court, Chengalpet using the forged documents. Mr. Satish, Manager (Legal), Mr. Shanmuga Sundram, Senior Manager, (Administration), have assisted in fabricating the forged documents and used the same to get patta from Tahsildar, Tambaram, thus cheating the Govt. Officials. Hence we request you to register the complaint and to investigate and take action in accordance with law as against the said company M/s GWL Property Limited represented by Mr. Satish, Manager (Legal) Mr. Shanmudga Sundaram, Senior Manager (Administration), A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma, Directors, and their accomplice who have connived and indulged in fabricating and forging documents for the purpose of illegally grabbing our lands and for all other offences committed by them.” 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 7 SCC 215 have held that the test to be applied by the court for quashment under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The High Court should not convert itself into a trial court. Their Lordships have held as under: “[10] Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have thorough look at Section 482, Cr.P.C. which reads: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any orders of this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". A bare perusal of Section 482, Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. [11] This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and others, 2000 3 SCC 269 , has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: "Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or die charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution with the lodgement of First Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes it's own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it's undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situations as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". [12] This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lai, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., 1996 5 SCC 591 ; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 3 SCC 259 and; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., 2005 1 SCC 122 . This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that: "The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed". Also see Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2012 12 SCC 72 . [13] What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. [14] In the backdrop of the legal position, well settled by this Court through catena of judgments, we would like to deal with the facts of the present case which lead to filing of the present complaint against the appellant under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477, I.P.C. on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. [15] The facts of the case which are not in dispute, for better appreciation of the facts and arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary for us to have a thorough look at the letter dated 17th May, 2004 addressed to the appellant/Branch Manager by respondent No.2. "Sir, It is requested that the Applicant has issued Cheque Book in which from Cheque No. 083691 to 083700 were 10 cheques in Account No. 1132, out of which, payment up to Cheque No. 083696 has been received and on rest of the cheques are signature of the applicant/account holder. The above cheque book and other necessary papers were in my hand bag and I by Bus from Pikhuwa was coming to Ghaziabad then in the bus itself by mistake that bag was left and even on making to much search could not found. Its information immediately I have given at the police station, Sihani Gate. Therefore, it is requested that you may treat the above cheques as cancelled and on that may not kindly make payment to any person. It will be very kind of you". A reading of the above letter makes it very clear that the complainant has instructed the appellant/Branch Manager not to pass cheques bearing Nos. 083697 to 083700, the four cheques which were already signed. There is no dispute that after submitting the above letter to the appellant, when Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2nd August, 2004, the same was not cleared by the appellant/Branch Manager in view of the letter of the complainant. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred from that Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st August, 2004, there was any instruction to the Bank to inform the account holder or police when the cheque is presented. It appears from the letter that only a request was made to the Bank that the said four cheques shall not be honoured. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred from that Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st August, 2004, there was any instruction to the Bank to inform the account holder or police when the cheque is presented. It appears from the letter that only a request was made to the Bank that the said four cheques shall not be honoured. [16] If we look at the complaint and letter addressed by the complainant to the Branch Manager, the entire grievance of the complaint appears to be that basing on the written information which had teen given to the appellant on 17th May, 2004, when the stolen cheque was presented, he should have given a complaint to the police. As the appellant has not chosen to give the complaint to the police, according to the complainant the other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant - Branch Manager and accordingly cheated him. [17] It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477, I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.” 7. Prima facie cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The matter is still under investigation. The Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the matter within a period of three months and put up the challan in the competent court of law in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.