JUDGMENT : N.S. DHANIK, J. 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order dated 6.3.2018 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1715/2018, State v. Aashish Mathur @ Lavi, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Anju Chauhan lodged an FIR on 23.8.2015 with PS Transit Camp, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the allegation that the accused applicant, his mother, his brother and other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and they cheated her more than rupees seventy lakhs. The complainant alleged that in April 2012, co-accused Neeraja Mathur (who is a relative of the complainant) and her two sons Aashish Mathur @ Lavi (present applicant) and Vinod Mathur came to the house of the complainant at Pantnagar and gave a proposal to purchase the land of one Smt. Mahima Rani in partnership. Land was situated in Lucknow. Agreeing on the said proposal of the accused persons, the complainant gave them token money of rupees one lakh and thereafter transferred rupees seventy lakhs through RTGS in the account of Smt. Neeraja Mathur. Thereafter partnership deed was prepared on 7.5.2012 in which co-accused Shailendra Pratap Singh was the first party, Smt Neeraja Mathur was the second party and the complainant was the third party. But Smt. Neeraja Mathur fraudulently got done the registry of the said land in her own name. When the complainant came to know about this, she demanded her money back. Smt. Mathur gave three post-dated cheques amounting to rupees 87,60,000/- in total (including interest). However, these cheques were dishonoured and consequently, Smt. Mathur has also been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant subsequently came to know that Smt. Mahima Rani had passed away on 20.3.2011, much before the Registry of the said land was done. For this fraud committed by the accused persons, son of Smt. Mahima Rani also lodged an FIR in Lucknow. 3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 Smt. Anju Chauhan, investigation was made and police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present applicant and thereafter the Court below has summoned the applicant to face trial for the aforementioned offences. 4. 3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 Smt. Anju Chauhan, investigation was made and police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present applicant and thereafter the Court below has summoned the applicant to face trial for the aforementioned offences. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that for the same cause of action, another FIR has already been registered in Lucknow. I do not find any substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the reason that the said FIR was lodged by the son of Smt. Mahima Rani for impersonating someone as Smt. Mahima Rani and selling her property and this FIR has nothing to do with the present FIR which has been lodged for cheating the money of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that all the allegations are against Smt. Neeraja Mathur, Vinod Mathur and Shailendra Mathur. I do not find any substance in this contention inasmuch as specific allegation has been made against the present applicant also. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, the same has been explained in the FIR itself. 5. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case and the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case against the accused applicant. 6. It is settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, 2008 1 SCC(Cri) 259, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (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. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. 7. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. 7. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.