JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By filing this petition u/s 482 of the CrPC, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 13/2016 registered on 10.08.2016 by the Bureau of Investigation and Economic Offence (in short BIEO), Assam being registered as GR Case No. 9016/2016 u/s 419/420/406 of the IPC. 2. The respondents herein who are the shareholders of Assam Chemical & Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. filed an FIR on 03.08.2016 with the BIEO against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner who is functioning as a Chartered Accountant/Auditor of the aforesaid company misappropriated the company’s fund in collusion with the then Director Deep Narayan Singh (since deceased) of the said company. It has been alleged in the FIR that 10 numbers of computers, each, valued at Rs. 30,000/- were shown to have been purchased by the company, but none of the computers were found available in the office of the company. Further allegation is that the then Managing Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) had opened an account in the Industrial Co-operative Bank without approval of the Board of Directors and the petitioner was the introducer without having any authority to do so. The petitioner though not a shareholder of the company, was hankering after the shares and he even tried to steal the shares of the then Managing Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) by mesmerizing him, but somehow, the situation was saved by his son. The petitioner without having authority impersonated himself as company Secretary of the aforesaid company for personal interest. He used to put signatures in the salary voucher instead of putting the same in the salary slip with a view to siphon off company’s fund. The petitioner further misappropriated the company’s fund by approving a false fill from its raw material suppliers, Kolkata amounting to Rs. 2,95,000/- without any supply being made by the suppliers. The petitioner also failed to submit the certified copy of the balance sheet to the Board of Directors of the company within the specified period which is highly detrimental to the interest of the company. It was also alleged that the petitioner used to commit theft of diesel from the company for using the same in his vehicle. 3. The petitioner also failed to submit the certified copy of the balance sheet to the Board of Directors of the company within the specified period which is highly detrimental to the interest of the company. It was also alleged that the petitioner used to commit theft of diesel from the company for using the same in his vehicle. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is a qualified Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant and Company Secretary, and he is one of the partners of the C.A. firm namely, U.A. Mazumdar and Company, which was engaged by the company as auditor. He is rendering his professional services to the company accordingly, being so, engaged by the company. According to the petitioner a tug of war has been going on between the management of the company and the shareholders with the present respondents and he has become a scapegoat. The respondent Deba Kr. Hazarika who was a shareholder and an employee of the said company was terminated from service by the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) which resulted in disgruntlement amongst Mr. Hazarika and few of his accomplishes and they have repeatedly filed cases one after another against the erstwhile Managing Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) for his removal. But having failed to achieve their objective they have again filed the FIR against the petitioner although he has no personal interest in the affairs of the company except rendering professional services. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioner further is that Chartered Accountant Act, 1949 and the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 have given powers to the members of the aforesaid institutions to render professional services in the field of finance, company matters etc., the Registrar of Companies is vested with the powers to scrutinize the financial impropriety of the company. The audit balance are statutorily required to be filed with the ROC every year and if there is any financial impropriety, the ROC is vested with powers to deal with the same in accordance with the law. The BIEO, Assam has no jurisdiction to investigate into the internal affairs of a private company which is exclusive domain of the ROC. Petitioner also pleaded that Section 419/420/406 of the IPC are not attracted at all in this case and the filing of the present FIR after about 7 years is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. The BIEO, Assam has no jurisdiction to investigate into the internal affairs of a private company which is exclusive domain of the ROC. Petitioner also pleaded that Section 419/420/406 of the IPC are not attracted at all in this case and the filing of the present FIR after about 7 years is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier also the respondents filed several cases before the BIEO against the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) with the same sort of allegations and the cases are under investigation in that view of the matter also the present FIR is not maintainable. 6. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous submissions to convince me that the respondents filed the present FIR by suppression of material fact that the informant Deba Kr. Hazarika who is a terminated employee of Assam Chemical and Pharmaceutical Private ltd., earlier lodged various cases before the Civil Court as well as Company Law Board, Kolkata, challenging his termination order. Having failed to get any favorable order, he lodged the instant FIR before the BIEO, Assam who is not authorized to conduct investigation in such cases. The petitioner being an Auditor and Chartered Accountant engaged by the company was discharging his professional duties which is not subject to scrutiny by the BIEO, Assam and the appropriate authority is the Registrar of Companies. No offence u/s 419/420/406 of the IPC has been made out against the petitioner and nothing was entrusted to him by the company. Regarding purchasing of the computers by the management, the petitioner cannot be held liable and accusation in this regard was also earlier made in the FIR which was lodged before the BIEO against the erstwhile Director D.N. Singh (since deceased). Introducing the Managing Director of the company to the bank for opening the bank account, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be an offence under any provisions of the law. He knew the Managing Director and introduced him for which he cannot be held liable. Mr. Das. Introducing the Managing Director of the company to the bank for opening the bank account, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be an offence under any provisions of the law. He knew the Managing Director and introduced him for which he cannot be held liable. Mr. Das. Contends that the auditors are appointed by the shareholders of the company in the Annual General Meeting and they retire after the end of the financial year and if the shareholders were not satisfied with the services rendered by the petitioner he would not have been reappointed as Auditor. As Auditor of the company his duty was to the extent of checking the correctness of the entries made in the Book of Accounts by checking the corresponding vouchers and the auditors do not possess any mechanism to judge the genuineness of the documents. 8. Advancing further Mr. Das, learned counsel argues that the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value do not make out any case and the FIR has been filed for victimizing the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR pertains to the year 2008 and when the earlier FIR was filed against the then Managing Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) no allegation was made against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Das, has taken me through Annexure XII of the petition to contend that as provided in the charter of duty of the BIEO which was created in the year 1976, the accusations do not come under the domain of the BIEO. 10. Controverting the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 argues that accusations of fraud, misrepresentation and misappropriation of company’s fund have been brought against the petitioner and the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at the threshold in exercise of the power u/s 482 of the CrPC. Petitioner’s duty was to audit the accounts, he exceeded his jurisdiction and by false representation misappropriated company’s fund. He also contends that since the case is under investigation by the BIEO, the same cannot be quashed although the charter of duties of the BIEO does not cover the accusations made against the petitioner. 11. Before entering into the merit of this criminal petition it is necessary at this stage to point out the law with regard to quashing of criminal complaint or FIR. The law is no longer res integra. 11. Before entering into the merit of this criminal petition it is necessary at this stage to point out the law with regard to quashing of criminal complaint or FIR. The law is no longer res integra. The Apex court in a catena of decision laid down the principles of law to be followed for quashing of FIR or complaint. Right from the case of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 the Supreme Court held that revisional or inherent powers for quashing the proceeding at the initial stage can be exercised only when the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The above view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the later decision including the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Karnataka vs. Partor P. Raju, AIR 2006 2825. 12. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra) the Apex Court gave a note of caution on the powers of quashing of criminal proceeding in the following words:- “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified inn embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 13. From a close reading of the principles laid down in the case of R.P. Kapoor (supra) and Bhajanlal (supra) it emerges that broadly speaking, quashing of an FIR or a complaint is possible (a) when the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) when the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and/or make out a case against the accused; and (c) when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of such absurd and inherently improbable allegations, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 14. In view of the laid down principles of law involved for quashing a complaint or FIR what needs to be decided now is whether the accusations made against the petitioner in the FIR made out any case. There is no denial that the petitioner is the Auditor/Chartered Accountant of the company and he is still holding the office being appointed and reappointed by the shareholders. There is also no denial that his duty is to render professional service to the company. The accusations against him are that 10 numbers of computers were shown to have been purchased but infact those were not supplied. Earlier also the respondents filed FIR against the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) with the same accusations but in the FIR no accusation was brought against the petitioner. He being the auditor had no role to play in purchasing the computers and it is for the management to take appropriate decision and it is also not his duty to ascertain whether the computers are supplied or not. Even if it is presumed that the computers were not supplied then also there is no logic behind holding the petitioner liable on this count. Even if it is presumed that the computers were not supplied then also there is no logic behind holding the petitioner liable on this count. On the basis of the earlier FIR filed, a case was registered by BIEO against the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased), the said case is under investigation and if at all the petitioner was involved BIEO would have found his complicity in the commission of the crime during investigation. Non registration of any separate case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to file fresh FIR with the same allegations which is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. 15. So far accusations of introducing the Managing Director at the time of opening the bank account is concerned as I have already discussed, no criminal liability can be attributed to the accused for introducing the Managing Director to the bank. The accusations that the accused petitioner wanted to grab the shares of the company and also the shares of the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) by mesmerizing him is also baseless not at all believable. Moreover, there is no accusation by the then Director D.N. Singh (since deceased) that the accused wanted to steal his shares. So far the accusation that petitioner put his signature in the voucher at the time of drawing his salary instead of putting signature in the salary slip is concerned it was just an irregularity and that could have been pointed out to him at that time, he cannot be held criminally liable for drawing his salary by signing the vouchers. It has been alleged against him that he misappropriated the companies fund by approving a bill of Rs. 2,95,000/-. It is not the duty of the petitioner to purchase goods, decision in this regard is obviously taken by the management of the company and his duty was to audit the accounts and not to approve bills. If the billed amount was paid to the suppliers without receiving the goods the management of the company is liable and the auditor cannot be held to be liable. Another accusation is that he failed to timely submit the audit reports, on this ground also no criminal liability could be attributed to him. Though accusation of theft of diesel has been brought but no foundation has been laid for such an accusation. Another accusation is that he failed to timely submit the audit reports, on this ground also no criminal liability could be attributed to him. Though accusation of theft of diesel has been brought but no foundation has been laid for such an accusation. He allegedly put some diesel belonging to the company in his vehicle. If he was caught red handed by the chowkidar at that time itself action should have been initiated by the management but that was not done and no specific information has been provided in the written FIR regarding theft of diesel. Such accusation made after 7/8 years of the alleged occurrence is not likely to stand the test of law. Moreover, no case of theft has been registered against him. 16. The case has been registered against the petitioner u/s 419/420/406 of the IPC. In the case of cheating intention of the accused is dishonest from the very commencement of the transaction. There is really no consent by the person, who is intentionally induced by deception to deliver the property or allow any person to retain the property or is intentionally induced, as a result of deception, to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived and which act or omission caused or is likely to cause damager or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. In criminal breach of trust an accused comes into possession of a property or acquires dominion over a property honestly and bona fide, but he develops dishonest intention subsequent to the taking possession of, or subsequent to having acquired the dominion over, the property and having developed such dishonest intention, he dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use the property or dishonestly uses or disposes of the property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do. 18. In the present case, from the accusations, neither the ingredients of Section 415 nor Section 406 of the IPC has been made out against the accused petitioner. 18. In the present case, from the accusations, neither the ingredients of Section 415 nor Section 406 of the IPC has been made out against the accused petitioner. He was retained by the company as an Auditor and he was rendering his professional services to the company as a qualified Chartered Accountant and company secretary and was under the control of the management. There is no accusation that as auditor or Chartered Accountant he committed cheating or criminal breach of trust. From the materials placed before this court it is abundantly clear that there is a tug of war between the management and the respondents for the last several years and similar accusation was also brought in the earlier FIR against the erstwhile Director D.N. Singh (since deceased). The plea of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to take control of the company cannot be ruled out. 19. Moreover BIEO is an independent investigation agency created in the year 1976 having their own charter of duties. Obviously, the accusations in the FIR do not fall under the domain of BIEO and they have no authority to conduct the investigation. The investigation so far conducted on the basis of the FIR cannot stand and is liable to be quashed. 20. Having regard to the submission, advanced by the learned counsel and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before this court and all my discussions, above, I am of the considered view that the initiation of impugned criminal proceeding, filing of FIR, registration of a case against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law exposing the petitioner to unnecessary harassment. It would be legally impermissible to allow the petitioner to suffer agony of a criminal proceeding. 21. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 13/2016 registered on 10.08.2016 being registered as GR Case No. 9016/2016 u/s 419/420/406 of the IPC, pending for investigation before the BIEO is hereby stand quashed and set aside.