JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned GA for the State respondents and Mr. L. Seityandra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 4. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report bearing FIR No. 465(8)2011, Imphal P.S. registered under section 468/471/420 of the IPC. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties the case of the prosecution as has been made out in the FIR needs to be taken notice. 4. A written report was submitted by the Joint Director, Department of Social Welfare to the Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station alleging therein that he has come to know that the accused, Jose Thomas, Secretary to the Nehru Peach Foundation has issued appointment letters to 50 (approx.) social workers for introducing at least 15 students to Nehru Peach Foundation for educational loans for further studies in professional and technical courses all over India. In the said appointment letter annual salary has been shown as Rs. 3.00 lakhs which would be subject to condition of achieving the target of introducing at least 15 students to Nehru Peach Foundation. 5. On getting such information, the informant along with the Police officials raided the spots where this petitioner had stayed and made a query to him in respect of the advertisement but he did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereupon the written report was submitted alleging that the accused committed offences punishable U/S 468/471/420 of the IPC. 6. Upon initiation of a case, the petitioner came to this court and filed an application U/S 482 bearing Cril.Petn. No.10 of 2012, which application was disposed of on 22.01.2015 directing the I.O.to complete investigation within a period of six months. When investigation in terms of the order passed by this Court was not completed, petitioner again filed this petition for quashing of the FIR. 7. Earlier when the matter was taken up an order was passed directing the counsel of the State to file status report which was not filed and then an order was passed directing the I.O. to be present in the Court with the Case Diary. To-day the I.O. presented himself. On taking instruction, Mr. 7. Earlier when the matter was taken up an order was passed directing the counsel of the State to file status report which was not filed and then an order was passed directing the I.O. to be present in the Court with the Case Diary. To-day the I.O. presented himself. On taking instruction, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State informed that the investigation of the case could not be made, as the Case Diary, which had been called for had been submitted to the office of the Government Advocate, gutted in fire and thereby nothing is left with the Police Station and there would be great difficulty in proceeding with the investigation. 8. Upon it Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in that event in stead of giving opportunity to the State for reconstructing the file, matter itself be heard on its own merit as reconstruction of file may consume considerable time and that the allegation made in the FIR never constitute any offence under which case has been registered. In this regard it was submitted that accepting the allegation to the effect that the petitioner has issued appointment letters to 50 social workers showing annual salary of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for introducing at least 15 students to Nehru Peach Foundation for educational loans for further studies in professional and technical courses all over India, no offence either of cheating or forgery is made out and thereby the FIR is fit to be quashed. 8.1. As against this, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned GA and also Mr. L. Seityandra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been specifically alleged to have issued appointment letters to 50 social workers offering annual salary of Rs. 3.00 lakhs with a condition that they have to introduce 15 students to Nehru Peach Foundation for educational loan and thereby such an allurement being there, petitioner can certainly be said to have committed offence of cheating and forgery. 9. In the context of the submission I would straight way refer to the provisions as enshrined of Section 482 of the Cr.PC which is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 9. In the context of the submission I would straight way refer to the provisions as enshrined of Section 482 of the Cr.PC which is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The section itself envisaged three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and (iii) to other wise secure ends of justice. Undoubtedly the jurisdiction of the High Court under the said provision is very wide but the decisions are there giving caution to the court to exercise it sparingly, carefully and cautiously to do substantial justice, for which alone the court exists. Here at this stage I will be referring to a decision rendered in a case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein Their Lordships summarized some of the categories of the cases where the inherent power under section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the Court to quash criminal proceeding against the accused, which are as follows: (i) whether it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complainant, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is either no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. By keeping in view the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the case it be reiterated that this petitioner being Secretary to the Nehru Peach Foundation issued appointment letters to 50 persons showing annual salary of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on a condition of introducing at least 15 students to the Nehru Peace Foundation for educational loan for further studies in professional and technical courses all over the India. 11. Accepting this allegation to be true no offence of cheating is made out. 3.00 lakhs on a condition of introducing at least 15 students to the Nehru Peace Foundation for educational loan for further studies in professional and technical courses all over the India. 11. Accepting this allegation to be true no offence of cheating is made out. Section 415 deals with cheating, which reads as follows: "415: Cheating:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, any which act of or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 12. From bare reading of the section one finds that to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined in Section 415 it is necessary to show that at the time of making promise he had fraudulent or dishonest intention to retain the property or to induce the person so deceived to do something which he would not otherwise doing. 13. The ingredients required to constitute an offence of cheating have been succinctly laid down in the case of Ram Jas v. State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 740 , which are follows: (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii)(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and; (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property." Thus, I do find that basic ingredients of fraudulent and dishonest inducement and also the other ingredients of parting with money on being deceived are not there and therefore offence of cheating is never attracted. 13.1. Similarly, no offence or forgery is made out. 13.1. Similarly, no offence or forgery is made out. It be stated that forgery has been defined in Section 463 of the IPC, which are as follows: "463: Forgery:- [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 14. From its perusal basic element of forgery appears to be (1) the making of a forged document or part of it; (2) such making should be with such intention as has been in the section such as to cause damage or injury any person; (3) to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to cause any person to express or implied contract; (4) to commit fraud and that fraud may be committed. 15. What acts constitute for making false documents are prescribed in Section 464 which reads as follows: "464. 15. What acts constitute for making false documents are prescribed in Section 464 which reads as follows: "464. Making a false document;- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record - First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently - (a) Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) Affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature] with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record of the nature of the alteration]. 16. In the context of the provision as is there under section 463 and also 464 of the IPC, the petitioner by issuing appointment letters to 50 social workers cannot be said to have created a false document dishonestly and fraudulently and thereby no offence under section 468/471/420 is made out. 17. Under the circumstances entire FIR is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.