ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. J.K. Pasari learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned G.P. II for the respondent No. 1; Mr. Deepak Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1706 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120(B) of I.P.C. A further direction has been sought for from this Court upon the concerned respondent not to take any coercive step against the petitioner in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P. S. Case No. 160 of 2016. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the subsidy amount which was granted to the petitioner by the Director, Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission was not deposited in the account of Indian Overseas Bank. It has been alleged that the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s. Herbal Heritage had approached the Indian Overseas Branch, Kishoreganj branch, Ranchi for sanction of loan for buying plant and machinery for her firm. It has been stated that she was given a loan of Rs. Twenty three lacs by 3 loan accounts and the same was covered under the National Horticulture Mission. On the request made by the petitioner to the Director, Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission to provide her 55% subsidy, the same was approved on 04.08.2015 being Rs. 13,75,000/- against the loan amount of Rs. 23 lacs and accordingly, the Indian Overseas Bank requested the State Horticulture Mission to send the subsidy amount to the bank. It has been alleged that on 25.02.2016, the Indian Overseas Bank was informed by the Deputy Director, Horticulture that the subsidy amount granted in favour of the petitioner at her request had been sent to the Bank of Baroda, Ratu Chatti, Ranchi in 2 installments. It has been alleged that on enquiry made by the Indian Overseas Bank, the Bank of Baroda informed that no credit facility was granted to the petitioner by the bank. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Section 406/420/120B of the I.P.C. 4. It has been stated by Mr. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Section 406/420/120B of the I.P.C. 4. It has been stated by Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly making payment of monthly installments till November, 2015, but on account of the business of the petitioner suffering a huge set-back due to fire causing irreparable damage to the lemon grass, she had faltered in paying the installments. 5. It has been stated that the respondent no. 3 had already availed of an alternative remedy by filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunals. Learned counsel submits that the loan granted by the Indian Overseas Bank is a secured loan as it is recoverable under the "Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises and since remedy under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act has also been availed of, the initiation of a criminal proceeding appears to be a malicious move on the part of the banking authorities. Learned counsel further submits that merely because the amount of Rs. 13.75 lacs had been deposited in the account of the petitioner in the Bank of Baroda, the same cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner had committed a criminal breach of trust and had cheated the Indian Overseas Bank of the subsidy amount granted by the State Horticulture Mission. 6. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3, on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner is involved in defalcation of government subsidy of Rs. 13.75 lacs which was meant to be deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank against her loan account. But the petitioner deliberately and with an intent to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank had got it transferred to her own personal account. It has been stated that after the petitioner was granted a subsidy of 55%, the Indian Overseas Bank had requested the Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission to send the subsidy amount of Rs. 13.75 lacs to the bank, but on request of the petitioner, the loan was deposited in her account maintained in Bank of Baroda. It was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner for her own personal benefit. 13.75 lacs to the bank, but on request of the petitioner, the loan was deposited in her account maintained in Bank of Baroda. It was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner for her own personal benefit. Learned counsel submits that the act of the petitioner would further be evident from the fact that on enquiry, Bank of Baroda had disclosed that the petitioner did not avail of any credit facility from the Bank of Baroda. 7. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has stated that trust settles the guarantee claim to the lending institute only after lodging of a guarantee claims after compliance of the stipulated guidelines. Learned counsel submits that the responsibilities of the bank in trying to get the amount of loan recovered does not weed away and only after all necessary steps are taken by the concerned loanee bank, does the trust come into the picture of guaranteeing the loan amount. 8. The crux of the issue at hand is as to whether the petitioner could have deposited the subsidy amount granted by the Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission in the Bank of Baroda, although she has taken a loan from the Indian Overseas Bank. It is an admitted fact that no credit facility was ever availed by the petitioner in the Bank of Baroda, where she also maintains an account. The loan was taken from Indian Overseas Bank for setting up a business of lemon grass and on application made before the Director, Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission, 55% subsidy was granted to the petitioner. 9. The subsidy so granted was against the loan amount which was taken by the petitioner from the Indian Overseas Bank. The Bank of Baroda never came into the picture as neither it had granted any credit facility to the petitioner nor the subsidy amount granted was with respect to a loan taken from Bank of Baroda. The act of the petitioner therefore, seems to be a deliberate act in order to deprive the Indian Overseas Bank of the subsidy amount granted by the Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission against the loan amount of Rs. 23 lacs disbursed in favour of the petitioner. The deposit of the subsequent amount in the account of the petitioner maintained in the Bank of Baroda also appears to be on her request which all the more points to the guilt of the petitioner. 23 lacs disbursed in favour of the petitioner. The deposit of the subsequent amount in the account of the petitioner maintained in the Bank of Baroda also appears to be on her request which all the more points to the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner having availed the subsidy amount should have asked the State Horticulture Mission to have deposited the same in her account kept in the Indian Overseas Bank to mitigate a part of the loan, but by doing the contrary the niddle of grave suspicion is raised against the petitioner. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that the investigation is still pending. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan amount is secured and recoverable under the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises also seems to be a fallacious argument as the guarantee of the trust does not take away the responsibilities of the loanee in respect to recovery of the entire outstanding amount of credit from the borrower. 10. The filing of the case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the entire amount also does not dilute the prosecution case as the criminal culpability of the petitioner as has been discussed above is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In the case of "Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Others" reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 , while considering the ambit and scope of High Court in an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 it was held as follows: 27. "In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. It is well settled that Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice." 12. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice." 12. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case of cheating and criminal breach of trust is made out as the issue in question is only related to non-returning of the loan amount, it was held in the case of "Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & others" reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 which reads as follows: 10. "It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (Illustration f) is worthy of notice now: "(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats." 11. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities." 13. Thus, the judgments under reference further fortifies the case of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 with respect to an offence having been made out against the petitioner. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities." 13. Thus, the judgments under reference further fortifies the case of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 with respect to an offence having been made out against the petitioner. At this stage when the investigation into the offence is already in progress and there being more than a prima-facie case in existence against the petitioner, it would be premature for this Court to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 14. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.