JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Goyal, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. A. Nath, the learned advocate for the informant, i.e. the respondent No.2. 2. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding pertaining to Azara P.S. Case No. 511/2017 under sections 406, 420, 506, 294, 34 I.P.C. 3. The respondent No.2 had lodged an ejahar before the Officer- In- Charge of Azara P.S. on 09.10.2017 on behalf of M/s. Gopiram Chetram, Siding Bazar, Tinsukia, interalia, alleging that they had brought sugar from Sabitgarh, U.P. to Azara Railway Station for onward carriage to Tinsukia by truck No. AS-01-S-7103 on 19.09.2017. But, the petitioner by influencing the driver of, had unloaded the said sugar in his godown at Dal Mill, Bijoynagar, Palasbari Road, by force despite objection and protest of the driver. Thereafter, the driver informed them about the matter and that the petitioner contacted them over phone and requested not to take any legal action and assured that he would pay the value of sugar within 21.09.2017. The respondent No.2 waited till 24.09.2017 and verbally informed the police on 24.09.2017, but still the petitioner had not paid any money. The respondent No.2 had also stated that the petitioner had cheated them and that he was killing time by giving excuses for which there was delay in lodging the FIR and it was further stated that instead of paying the petitioner was threatening them over phone when they tried to contact him. Accordingly, Azara P.S. Case No. 511/2017 under sections 406, 420, 506, 294, 34 I.P.C. was registered. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the petitioner has a valid defence to the effect that the consignment of sugar was despatched by the respondent No.2 vide Invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 for Rs.22,20,408/- against which a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was remitted through Punjab National Bank. It is projected that the balance money was withheld because of the bad quality of sugar, which is a trade and/or a pure civil dispute. 5. It is projected that the balance money was withheld because of the bad quality of sugar, which is a trade and/or a pure civil dispute. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the document relating to monetary transaction on which the petitioner was relying upon are (i) the invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 raised by the respondent No.2 for Rs.22,20,408/-, (ii) Bank’s certificate of RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) by which a sum of Rs.16.00 lakh was transferred by the firm of the petitioner in favour of M/s. Gopiram Chetram, the firm of the respondent No.2, and (iii) copy of seizure list by which the police had seized the invoice dated 19.09.2017 and invoice for 383 + 676 packets sugar and, as such, all the said documents were of sterling quality and ought not to be left out for consideration by this Court. Therefore, by referring to the contents of the defence documents, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of the ejahar would reveal that dispute between the parties was predominantly a civil dispute, for which the process of lodging FIR was abuse of the process of law and an attempt to short-cut to realize money. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of (a) Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 663 , (b) Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , (c) Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 696 , (d) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. 6. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that as the present case involves a private dispute and the first informant, who is the respondent No.2 herein is duly represented by his the learned advocate, as such, he has nothing to submit save and except that as a FIR has been lodged, it was incumbent on part of the State Police to investigate the allegation and it is submitted that at his stage when police investigation was in progress, the petitioner could raise the plea raised herein at the time of hearing on charge. 7. 7. Opposing the prayer for quashing of the FIR, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the present case is built up on falsehood, because in the present application, the petitioner has projected that he was the proprietor of M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog, and to demolish the said stand, in the affidavit –in- opposition, the respondent No.2 has annexed a copy of the certificate of registration under the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 which discloses that the proprietor of the said firm was one Nayan Bhalotia and not the petitioner. In this connection, it is submitted that the there were two separate transactions in this case, one was the sale of sugar to the firm M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog vide Invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 for Rs.22,20,408/- against which a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was remitted through Punjab National Bank and that the second event which led to the lodging of FIR was in connection with the truck bearing No. AS-01-S-7103 having been way-led by the petitioner on 19.09.2017 by influencing the driver and the act of forcible unloading of sugar in his godown at Dal Mill, Bijoynagar, Palasbari Road despite objection and protest of the driver. It is submitting that in this case, the petitioner is clubbing two separate transactions, thereby projecting as if there was only one transaction involving sale of sugar vide invoice dated 19.09.2017. 8. It is submitted that the ratio of the cases cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner would not apply in this case as because the case would require trial to arrive at the truth. It is submitted that assuming but not admitting the case projected by the petitioner was true, then also as per the admission by the petitioner was that out of bill amount of Rs.22,20,408/-, M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog had paid only a part amount of Rs.16.00 lakh was paid, which also amounted to cheating by the said firm. In the said context, it is submitted that nonetheless, transaction with M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog cannot be an answer to the illegal obtaining of sugar by unlawfully unloading the truck of the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner would have a fair chance to defend himself at the trial. In the said context, it is submitted that nonetheless, transaction with M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog cannot be an answer to the illegal obtaining of sugar by unlawfully unloading the truck of the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner would have a fair chance to defend himself at the trial. It is also submitted that this is not a case wherein the allegations contained in the FIR does not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence, which cannot be investigated by the police, as such, it is submitted that the present case does not fall within the exceptions as laid down in paragraph 102 of the Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). 9. It is also submitted that after illegally diverting a huge quantity of sugar, the petitioner had made false promise to make payment, without any intention of keeping such promise and, as such, the case of cheating as well as misappropriation of sugar was clearly made out. 10. It is seen that in this case, in order to make out a case, the petitioner has projected that he had received sugar vide Invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 against which a part payment was made. In the cause title of this case, the petitioner has filed this application in his personal capacity by describing himself as “Sri Surendra Bhalotia, S/o. Shree Gopal Bhalotia, R/o. T.R. Phukan Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-01, Assam.” However, in his affidavit filed in support of this application, the petitioner has sworn the same as follows – “I, Surendra Bhalotia, aged about 55 years, proprietor of ‘Somya Pratham Udyog Firm, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, S/o. Shree Gopal Bhalotia, R/o. T.R. Phukan Road, Fancy bazaar, Guwahati, Kamrup (M)...” As per annexure- I of the Affidavit- in- opposition, which is the Certificate of Registration under Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 the petitioner has not the proprietor of the said firm, namely, M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog. 11. It is seen that in this case, despite the specific stand of the respondent No.2 that the statement by the petitioner that he was the proprietor of the said firm was false, the petitioner did not take any steps for rectifying the said error. Moreover, in the absence of any explanation to link the petitioner with the firm, M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog, the plea of purchasing sugar vide invoice bearing No. G/46 dated 19.07.2017 fails miserably. Moreover, in the absence of any explanation to link the petitioner with the firm, M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog, the plea of purchasing sugar vide invoice bearing No. G/46 dated 19.07.2017 fails miserably. Thus, this Court is unable to accept that the transaction allegedly made by M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog with the firm of the respondent No.2 had anything to do with the transactions covered by the allegations contained in the FIR. 12. However, from the allegations contained in the FIR, the stand of the respondent No.2 is that after the alleged way-leading of truck containing sugar and the alleged misappropriation thereof came to knowledge of the respondent No.2 on 19..09.2017 itself, the petitioner had contacted the respondent No.2 and assured payment of money. But by waiting till 21.09.2017 to inform the police and then by filing FIR on 24.10.2017, it appears that there was some acquiescence on part of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the question is whether an acquiescence of the said nature would dilute and totally negate the commission of an alleged offence. In this regard, nothing has been placed on record to show that if any act was originally punishable with cognizable offence, and if the accused offers to compensate the owner, the offence gets totally obliterated. 13. It is seen that the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004) 0 Supreme(SC) 1483, had held as under:- “29. Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited where under in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case.” 14. Therefore, on a scrutiny of the case as projected by the petitioner, it is seen that in the present case, (a) the affidavit sworn in support of this quashing application does not inspire the confidence of this Court, and (b) in the absence of any apparent link between the petitioner and M/s. Somya Pratham Udyog, the purported purchase of sugar by the said firm from the respondent No.2 cannot come to aid of the petitioner because the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, does not qualify to be equated with a material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality. Therefore, once the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner does not satisfy the test of “material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality” as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above referred case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), the trite law is that the defence materials cannot be appreciated for the purpose of quashing of the FIR. 15. The parameters for quashing of FIR are well defined in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The relevant paragraph 102 thereof is quoted below:- “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. 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. 2. 1. 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable 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. 3. 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. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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.” 16. In view of the discussions above, this Court in unable to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the FIR in question discloses a prima facie civil dispute. Hence, this petition fails and the same stands dismissed. 17. In view of the discussions above, this Court in unable to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the FIR in question discloses a prima facie civil dispute. Hence, this petition fails and the same stands dismissed. 17. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed to be a finding on fact and, as such, this order shall not prejudice the petitioner and that this order shall also not influence either the Investigating Officer of Azara P.S. Case No. 511/2017, while investigating the case. This order shall also not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case on merit, if at all the case is brought to trial after investigation.