JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is a criminal petition, filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, praying for quashing and setting aside the order, dated 15.12.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, in CR Case No. 46/2015, taking cognizance of offence under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC against the accused-petitioner. 2. The fact leading to the complaint case, being CR Case No. 46/2015, is as follows: The present petitioner is the accused No. 2 in the aforesaid complaint case and the accused No. 1, was the Circle Officer of Chabua Revenue Circle, in the district of Dibrugarh, during the year 2013. The accused No. 2, for the purpose of submitting his tender for settlement of Bogibeel-Karenbali Ferry Service, applied for land valuation certificate. On 19.6.2013, accused No. 1, Circle Officer (against whom cognizance has not been taken by the learned trial court) prepared a valuation certificate regarding the valuation of land belonging to the present accused-petitioner on the basis of the report of the concerned Lat Mondol. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Dibrugarh, on 24.12.2014, issued a valuation certificate in his favour with absurd valuation of his land on the basis of the certificate of the Circle Officer, aforesaid, without following the Government notification, regarding fixation of land valuation in the area/zone. The present accused- petitioner used the said valuation certificate while submitting his tender. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner used the valuation certificate, aforesaid, knowing the same to be false and not based on official records and dishonestly used the same as genuine and submitted it with his tender documents and got the settlement of the aforesaid Ferry Service in his favour. Thereafter, on being approached, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, after enquiry, found the said valuation certificate to be not as per Government notification and, therefore, cancelled the same on 1.4.2015. It is alleged that the accused petitioner and the aforesaid Circle Officer knowing fully well committed fraud and forgery in issuing the valuation certificate, dated 24.12.2014. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, examined the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.PC and thereafter, on perusal of the statements of the complainant as well as his witnesses found prima-facie materials to proceed against the present-petitioner, under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, examined the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.PC and thereafter, on perusal of the statements of the complainant as well as his witnesses found prima-facie materials to proceed against the present-petitioner, under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC. Accordingly, he took cognizance of the said offences and issued process to the present-petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court as an accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the valuation certificate issued is presumed to be false, then also, it was issued by the competent authority. He has further submitted that the allegation of forgery of the valuation certificate using the same as genuine by the present petitioner is not made out to attract the offences under Sections 468/471 IPC. He has referred to the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions of law and submitted that in the face of the complaint petition itself the ingredients of such offences are totally absent; therefore, the cognizance, under the said provisions of law could not have been taken by the learned trial court. He has also submitted in respect of the offence under Section 177 IPC, cognizance of which offence has also been taken by the learned trial Court, that there is bar to take cognizance under the said section of law in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.PC. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the certificate issued by the Circle Officer on 19.6.2013 wherein the valuation of the land of the accused-petitioner is shown to be Rs. 1,85,70,000/-. He has also drawn the attention of this Court that the valuation of the same land has been certified to be Rs. 3,71,400/- vide the certificate dated 02.04.2015, issued in continuation of the valuation certificate issued on 24.12.2014. 5. I have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner. 6. I have also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel for the respondent. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I propose to dispose of this criminal petition at the admission stage itself as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. 6. I have also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel for the respondent. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I propose to dispose of this criminal petition at the admission stage itself as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It appears from the affidavit that the valuation certificate, dated 24.12.2014, was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, on the basis of the report dated 19.6.2013, prepared by the Circle Officer, Chabua, Dibrugarh. 8. It has also come out from the affidavit that on 10.7.2013, the Circle Officer, aforesaid, issued a letter to all concerned with a copy to the present accused-petitioner that the certificate issued by him on 19.6.2013 was not as per the Zonal valuation, fixed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, and after verification, some anomalies were found in the report of concerned Lat Mandal wherein it was found that the land was overvalued. Therefore, the valuation certificate issued by his office, on 19.6.2013, was cancelled. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that on the facts of the case and on the face of the complaint itself no offences of which cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court is made out, therefore, need to quash the order taking cognizance. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that submission of the cancelled valuation certificate with the tender amounts to cheating to get the settlement of the Ferry Service. He had concealed the fact of cancellation of the earlier valuation certificate. It deserves a mention here that this Court has noticed a huge difference in the valuation of the land of the accused-petitioner in two different certificates while in the earlier certificate, which is already cancelled, the valuation was found to be Rs. 1,85,70,000/- the valuation in the subsequent certificate is found to be only Rs. 3,71,400/-. It has been submitted that the Ferry Service was settled with the present accused-petitioner relying on the aforesaid false and cancelled valuation certificate. 10. 1,85,70,000/- the valuation in the subsequent certificate is found to be only Rs. 3,71,400/-. It has been submitted that the Ferry Service was settled with the present accused-petitioner relying on the aforesaid false and cancelled valuation certificate. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that if the ingredients of the Sections, under which cognizance has been taken is missing then this Court can quash the complaint. I have perused the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that this decision is not relating to taking of cognizance of a complaint rather this decision relates to framing of charge rejecting the prayer for discharge made by the accused persons. It is found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that there was no material to frame charge under the provisions under which charge was framed in the case involved in the said decision. Therefore, this decision is not applicable in the instant case on fact. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1073 , in paragraph -18, observed that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court also, the decision, referred to above, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the instant case as the present case is against the order of taking cognizance. The law relating to quashing of a proceeding or an order of the trial court has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , held, inter-alia, as follows: “(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 materials nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.” 11. These principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decisions have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663 . In the instant case, the complainant has laid the foundation of the complaint to the effect that the present accused-petitioner furnished the valuation certificate as one of the tender documents to get the Ferry Service settled in his favour knowing that the said valuation certificate was cancelled subsequently. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that although the copy of the letter dated 10.7.2013, cancelling the valuation certificate dated 19.6.2013, was communicated to him, yet, inspite of knowing about such cancellation, he submitted the cancelled valuation certificate, and thereby he committed fraud as well as cheating using the cancelled document as a genuine one. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although a copy of the letter dated 10.1.2013, is shown to have been marked to the present accused-petitioner, yet, he did not receive the same, and that being so, he had no knowledge about such cancellation. Such arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, needs examination of evidence on fact for arriving at a conclusion as to which of the contention made by the respective learned counsel for the parties is correct. This court, while exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, cannot enter into a fact finding exercise which can only be done by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence made available before it. This court, while exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, cannot enter into a fact finding exercise which can only be done by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence made available before it. This court, in view of the judgment rendered in Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) cannot examine the merits of the allegations nor can it enter into a detailed enquiry or meticulous analysis of the material for an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint. 13. That apart, it deserves a mention here that the stage of framing of charge in the complaint under this quashing proceeding has not reached yet. Taking cognizance under Sections 177/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code does not automatically mean that charge against the accused/petitioners would necessarily be under the provisions under which cognizance has been taken. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class while taking up the complaint, as a usual course of law, would consider the evidence to be led by the parties before arriving at a decision as to under which provisions of law he will frame the charge, if at all required to frame a charge. Therefore, to go to the merit of the provisions of law under which cognizance was taken on the basis of the initial statements of the complainant/ respondent and his witnesses is not of much relevance at this stage. 14. In view of the above, in the considered view of this court, this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is found devoid of merit, and therefore, dismissed. 15. The interim order, dated 6.5.2016, staying further proceedings of the CR Case No. 46/2015, stands vacated. 16. The criminal petition stands disposed of accordingly.