JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Seeking quashing of order dated 19.11.2007 whereby, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega took cognizance of the offence in Simdega PS Case No. 168 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 02 of 2007, the applicant has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Contractor of Bazar Samittee and the only allegation against him is that he issued receipt on realisation of market-fee. It is contended that on bare perusal of the allegations against the applicant, offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not made out against him. 4. In "State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal" (2004) 12 SCC 195 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The Court further held that when no offence is disclosed by the complainant, the court may examine the question of fact. In "Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd." (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus : 12.(i) "A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint." 5. The prosecution case is that the rice loaded in pick-up van bearing no. CG 13A/3610 weighing about 20 quintals was Government rice. When the said pick-up van was apprehended, the driver of the pick-up van disclosed the name of the applicant as the person who had issued receipt dated 30.12.2006, which was a Sunday. The prosecution case is that the rice loaded in pick-up van bearing no. CG 13A/3610 weighing about 20 quintals was Government rice. When the said pick-up van was apprehended, the driver of the pick-up van disclosed the name of the applicant as the person who had issued receipt dated 30.12.2006, which was a Sunday. The applicant was not named in the First Information Report however, a perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 19.11.2007 discloses that supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the applicant for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and considering the materials brought on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. 6. As noticed above, a criminal prosecution can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where on admitted facts no offence is made out or where the court finds that the prosecution launched is an abuse of the process of the court or it is expedient to quash the criminal prosecution in the interest of justice. In the present proceeding, the plea raised by the applicant is that no case is made out against him. Now, without examining the materials collected during investigation, it cannot be held that no case is made out against the applicant. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance the magistrate is required to see whether a prima-facie case is made out or not. In my opinion, the plea taken by the applicant can be conclusively decided only at the stage of framing of charge when it would be open to the applicant to plead that no legal evidence for framing of charge against him is available on record. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I decline to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed, however, with a liberty to the applicant to raise the plea which has been raised in the present proceeding at the time of framing of charge. 8. Stay granted vide order dated 27.07.2009 stands vacated. The lower court is directed to proceed with the trial in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 168/06 (G.R. No. 2/07). 9. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court by FAX, forthwith. Cr. M.P. Dismissed.