JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel, for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned standing counsel, Health Department, Assam. 2. As the basic challenge in all the petitions are the same so all these cases are taken up together for disposal by this common order. However, for proper reflection of the matter, brief facts of each case, is discussed separately. 3. In Crl. Pet. No. 696/2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 3332c/14 pending in the Court of CJM, Kamrup(M). According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 28.04.2014 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 04.06.2014 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 07.01.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government. 4. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSSS Act. 5. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. 5. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. It has also been contended that the complaint has reflected about the collection of sample as Bisleri Brand, manufactured by M/s Sureka Brand Project P. Ltd. and the petitioner Company is in no way connected with that particular product. 6. In Crl. Pet. No. 837/2016, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 2487/14 pending in the Court of JMFC, Kamrup(M). According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of A1 King Star Packaged drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 15.11.2013 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 13.12.2013 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 24.01.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government. 7. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 8. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. 8. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. 9. In Crl. Pet. No. 750/2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 706c/14 pending in the Court of SDJM(M), Rangia, Kamrup. According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 16.11.2013 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 13.12.2013 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 16.01.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government. 10. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 11. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. 11. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. It has also been contended that the complaint has reflected about the collection of sample as Bisleri Brand, manufactured by M/s Sureka Brand Project P. Ltd. and the petitioner Company is in no way connected with that particular product. 12. In Crl. Pet. No. 344/2016, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 2590c/14 pending in the Court of SDJM(S), Barpeta. According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner namely M/s New Variety Store located at Barpeta for testing through their Food Laboratory on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, on receipt of the Food Analyst report on 12.09.2013, the aforesaid complaint was filed without intimating the person concerned just after collection of the sample so that the person concerned can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c) of the said FSS Act for sending the samples to the accredited laboratory for further confirmation. Therefore, the petitioner is deprived of availing the opportunity for their protection. Moreover, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the case without following the statutory provision of Section 66 of the FSSS Act as the alleged products belongs to the Silver Drop Food and Beverages P. Ltd., the manufacturing unit of which is situated at Amingaon and the accused has no concern with the aforesaid Company. In the premises, filing of the case as against the petitioner is stated to be bad in law. 13. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 14. 13. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 14. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. 15. In Crl. Pet. No. 739/2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 255/15 pending in the Court of CJM, Udalguri. According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 31.07.2014 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 14.08.2014 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 12.09.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government. 16. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 17. 16. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 17. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. It has also been contended that the complaint has reflected about the collection of sample as Bisleri Brand, manufactured by M/s Sureka Brand Project P. Ltd. and the petitioner Company is in no way connected with that particular product. 18. In Crl. Pet. No. 721/2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 342/15 pending in the Court of CJM, Nalbari. According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 12.06.2014 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 26.08.2014 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 12.09.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government. 19. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 20. 19. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSS Act. 20. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. It has also been contended that the complaint has reflected about the collection of sample as Bisleri Brand, manufactured by M/s Sureka Brand Project P. Ltd. and the petitioner Company is in no way connected with that particular product. 21. The petitioner, herein, by filing an additional affidavit has brought on record certain documents obtained through the RTI and on the basis of which it has been submitted that the Food Analyst, Assam, is not notified in terms of the Section 30(3) and Section 45 of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.1.1 of the FSS Rules, 2011. That apart, the documents dated 05.07.2011, it is also evident that the State Public Health Laboratory is also not notified in terms of the Section 43 of the FSS Act. So far the other documents also reveal that accredited Laboratories notified by FSSAI for conducting test and analysis of food samples under FSS Regulation, the above State Public Health Laboratory Assam, is not embodied in the list. Therefore, the said Laboratory is unauthorized Laboratory and as such, all consequential action liable to be declared as void. 22. In all these cases, the designated officer Food Safety/respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit(however no affidavit is filed in Crl. P. 739/2015) contending similar version that as per the Food Analysis Report and Referral Food Laboratory the samples so collected from the petitioner's Company, found to be unsafe for human consumption and they have duly communicated the person concerned about collection of such samples so as to send the sample part for analysis at referral food laboratory and also about the report of Public Analyst informing them to prefer an appeal as per provision of Section 46(4) of the FSS Act. However, no prayer was made by the petitioner to the respondent authorities to send the sample to accredited laboratory or no appeal was preferred to the designated officer to send the sample for analysis at Referral Food Laboratory. Hence, the Offence Report was filed. It has been specifically stated that the petitioner on receipt of the notice from the designated officer under the provision of Section 46(4) of the FSS Act, ought to have submitted an appeal to the designated officer for sending the sample to the Referral Food Laboratory but instead he has submitted a prayer to the designated officer under section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act to send the samples to the accredited Laboratory, which, in fact, should have been done by the Food Business Operator during the time of sample collection. 23. Thus, the matter of sending sample to an accredited Laboratory under Section 47(1)(c)(iii), at this point, is not in conformity with the Act. Accordingly, it has been submitted to dismiss the petitions in limine. 24. In their affidavits in Crl. P. 344/2016, it has been submitted by respondents that they verbally requested the proprietor of the Store under Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act regarding analysis of the sample in the accredited Company but the petitioner refused to take the advantage. Further, it is submitted that the FSSAI vide letter dated 05.07.2011 has clarified that the existing public food testing Laboratories which are testing food samples under PFA will continue to perform their function of food testing under Section 98 of the FSS Act, 2006, till any notification is issued under Section 43 of the Act. 25. The petitioners in Crl. P. 750/2015, Crl. P. 696/2015 and Crl. P. 837/2016 have submitted their affidavits-in-reply to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent No. 2 along with certain documents regarding list of notified NABL Accredited Food Testing Laboratories and relevant Gazette Notification, etc. and also denied the averment that has been made by the respondent No. 2 that no any notice has ever been received by the petitioners to facilitate them for testing the samples through accredited Laboratory. It has also been contended that the State Public Health Laboratory is an unauthorized Laboratory and hence, any report from such Laboratory is of no consequence. 26. It is to be noted that although respondent has not filed separate affidavit in criminal petition no. It has also been contended that the State Public Health Laboratory is an unauthorized Laboratory and hence, any report from such Laboratory is of no consequence. 26. It is to be noted that although respondent has not filed separate affidavit in criminal petition no. 739/2015 but their reply in page 17 made it clear that as no request was made by the Food Business Operator immediately after collection of sample, so sample part was submitted to the designated officer. Thereafter the report of the public analyst was communicated to petitioner u/s 46(4) of the FSS Act, but no appeal was preferred by them as per provision. 27. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner Mr. S. Chamaria that the filing of the offence report without considering the representation filed by the petitioner for allowing them to get the sample examined at the accredited laboratory is bad in law as they have deprived the opportunity as provided by law. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act and the filing of such offence report is violative of Rule 2.4.5 of the FSS Rules. It has also been argued that in some cases notice under Section 47 of the FSS Act was not served on the petitioners and as such filing of offence report is violative of provision of the aforesaid Act and Rules. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing additional documents has submitted that the aforesaid laboratory in Assam is not authorised to examine such article which is not duly notified within the meaning of notification as per Section 2(g) of the aforesaid Act. Several other documents have also been referred to press into service that the list of FSSAI, Assam is not yet notified for NABL accredited food testing laboratories for analysis of samples taken under the FSS Regulation for one year vide annexure 1 with effect from 31.7.2014. 29. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Mr. Several other documents have also been referred to press into service that the list of FSSAI, Assam is not yet notified for NABL accredited food testing laboratories for analysis of samples taken under the FSS Regulation for one year vide annexure 1 with effect from 31.7.2014. 29. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Mr. DP Bora has seriously contended that such a submission on the part of the petitioner is totally misconceived and devoid of merit so as to quash the proceeding, whereas there is ample evidence/ documents to prove that petitioner has been duly served the required process in the form of V as required under Section 47 of the Act and was also duly informed that the petitioner may get examined the sample in the accredited laboratory on their part. It has also been contended that the petitioner herein has not acceded to the provision for getting the sample examined immediately after collection of the sample, though relevant notice was served on him and so such prayer made after much delay and that too after furnishing of public analyst report is not legally maintainable. As regards the notification that has been challenged it is submitted that the Public Analyst, Assam is empowered to examine such sample under the FSS Act as per the notification of 2011 that has been referred above and the question of status of accredited laboratory cannot be raised by the petitioner as the sample was not yet examined by the said laboratory. 30. Due consideration has been given to the rival contentions canvassed before this court and the documents that are annexed. After careful examination of all the petitions filed by the petitioners it reflects that the petitioners have not challenged the service of notice under Section 47 of the FSS Act or about the form V of the Rules and they simply come forward with the grievances that they were not provided the opportunity to get the sample examined at the accredited laboratory by the respondent, even though they made a prayer to this effect. In view of such matters on record the petitioners cannot raise any other ground that is not mentioned in the petitions. In view of such matters on record the petitioners cannot raise any other ground that is not mentioned in the petitions. On examination of the complaint lodged by the respondent authority it reflects that they have served the notice under Form V at the time of collection of the sample and they duly informed the Food Business Operator regarding the provision of sending of fourth part of the sample to the accredited laboratory for analysis as per the provisions of Section 47(c)(iii) of the FSS Act. 31. For better appreciation of the matter let us reproduce the relevant provision of the Act. 47. Sampling and analysis.- (1) When a Food Safety Officer takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall- (a) give notice in writing of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed; (b) except in special cases as may be provided by rules made under this Act, divide the sample into four parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression, the Food Safety Officer shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his signature or thumb impression, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person; (c)(i) send one of the parts for analysis to the Food Analyst under intimation to the Designated Officer; (ii) send two parts to the Designated Officer for keeping these in safe custody; and (iii) send the remaining part for analysis to an accredited laboratory, if so requested by the food business operator, under intimation to the Designated Officer: 32. The above provision nowhere mandates that a separate written notice is to be served upon the Food Business Operator to get the sample examined at accredited laboratory. The food safety officer is under legal obligation to serve notice in the shape of form V regarding collection of sample as per the provision which has been complied with by the officer in all the cases. 33. The food safety officer is under legal obligation to serve notice in the shape of form V regarding collection of sample as per the provision which has been complied with by the officer in all the cases. 33. Further, Rule 2.4.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 reads as follows :- In case the Food business operator from whom the sample has been taken or the person whose name and address and other particulars have been disclosed under Rule 2.5 of these rules, desires to have the fourth part of the sample analysed, he shall request the Food Safety Officer in writing to send the sample to any NABL accredited/FSSAI notified laboratory for analysis under intimation to the Designated Officer. 34. As has been referred to above the petitioner never made any request to the food safety officer to get the sample examined immediately after collection of the sample, as per the mandate of the aforesaid provision and it was only after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst which was served on them as per provision of Section 46(4) of the FSS Act, the petitioner filed the application before the designated officer for examining the sample at accredited laboratory. Again as per provision such a prayer for examining the sample can be made to the Food Safety Officer, not before the designated officer. Both the provisions u/s 47(1)(C)(iii) and 46(4) are distinct and separate. Obviously so written prayer was made on the part of petitioner in terms of Section 47(1)(C)(iii) rather it has been filed only after communication of the report of the public analyst. 35. As is evident the aforesaid Act provides no scope on the part of the respondent to entertain such petition and to send the sample to the accredited laboratory beyond the prescribed period as per Section 46(2) of the FSS Act, the food analyst has to examine the samples within a period of 14 days from receipt of sample. Any such request on the part of the petitioner at the belated stage cannot be entertained by the respondent which is beyond the statutory provision. One cannot give his own interpretation towards the provision of law which is otherwise more specific, as in the case at hand. Any such request on the part of the petitioner at the belated stage cannot be entertained by the respondent which is beyond the statutory provision. One cannot give his own interpretation towards the provision of law which is otherwise more specific, as in the case at hand. As per the submission of the respondent side the petitioner was duly notified either verbally or written about their right to get the sample examined at the initial time of collection of sample which, however, has denied in some of the cases by the petitioners. Such a denial at this stage cannot be accepted, whereas they have not denied the same in the petitions filed by them before this court. Any dispute regarding service of notice is to be proved in course of trial by adducing proper evidence and as such quashing of proceeding at the threshold cannot be justified. Further, the dispute as regards notification, establishment of an accredited laboratory in Assam, appears to be beyond the challenge that is made by the petitioner in the present case, as no sample was examined at any accredited laboratory at the instance of petitioner. 36. From the overall scrutiny of the matters on record it transpires that the respondent authority has filed all the necessary documents while filing the complaints which is not under challenge by the petitioner, so the quashing of the cases while there is prima facie case for proceeding cannot be adhered to. More so the challenge of the petitioner that the petition for allowing them to examine the samples at the accredited laboratory which was filed beyond the statutory mandate, has no force to adjudicate upon by the respondent side. No illegality appears to have been committed by the respondent side while filing the complaint. 37. The petitioner has sought for quashing the criminal proceeding by invoking the provision of Section 482 of the CrPC. The power and scope of invoking the inherent power under Section 482 is well settled. 38. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 AIR SC 604 has dealt with the matter with the following words and also issued certain guidelines. 8.1. The power and scope of invoking the inherent power under Section 482 is well settled. 38. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 AIR SC 604 has dealt with the matter with the following words and also issued certain guidelines. 8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or 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 a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H; 306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognisable offence justi-17 on and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself. [307B] State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] 2 SCR 52; distinguished. 39. Further, the Supreme Court in N Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj reported in (2014) 10 SCC 616 held that the power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so and it is only if, taking the allegations and complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 40. The Supreme Court in HMT Watches Ltd v. M.A. Abida reported in (2015) 11 SCC 776 held that though the High Court has enormous power under Section 482 but such power needs to be exercised cautiously and defence of accused, even though appearing plausible, cannot be considered for exercise of inherent powers, however, documents with unimpeachable character can be considered to decide about continuation of criminal proceedings or whether complaint had been filed only to harass accused and if complaint was with ulterior motive then power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and where complaint filed was genuine then the High Court cannot travel beyond prescribed limits and made it clear that sometimes on same set of facts, civil and criminal proceedings are maintainable. 41. In view of the legal proposition that is discussed above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases of petitioners who have also raised the disputed question of fact and the question of law that is challenged, can only be appreciated in course of trial and in case of violation of legal provision if proved in course of trial, the petitioner may invite acquittal but it is not a case to quash the proceeding at the threshold of the trial. Accordingly all the petitions stand dismissed. Stay order passed earlier is also hereby vacated.