JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.18072/2016 (Crime No.221/2014) pending on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. I have heard Sri. Abhishek Patil, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner virtually and Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Vasantha Kumar H.G., learned counsel for respondent No.2 The Karnataka Housing Board. 3. The gist of the complaint is that BDA has allotted a residential plot No.177-LIG in the name of H.R. Desai S/o R.H. Desai and a temporary allotment letter has been issued on 30.05.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused - H.R. Desai S/o. Revanna though he is not the H.R. Desai S/o. R.H. Desai by impersonating him as H.R. Desai, has fabricated the documents and submitted the same and got allotment letter dated 26.06.2013 and also got executed the sale deed dated 26.07.2013. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 419 and 420 of IPC are not attracted. It is his further submission that in-pursuance of the application filed and the allotment letter dated 26.06.2013, the amount has been deposited by the petitioner/accused to the tune of Rs.6,39,382/- and the conditional sale deed has also been executed. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused was not having any knowledge or intention to commit any offence. Further it is submitted that bonafides on receipt of the allotment letter, he has credited the amount and a conditional sale deed has also been executed. It is his further submission that to show his bonafides, immediately after coming to know that the said site No.177-LIG has been allotted to some other person, voluntarily he has given a letter to the Authorities on 06.12.2013 for cancellation and if really, he wanted to make profit out of the same by impersonation or by fabricating the document, under such circumstance, he ought not to have given the said application. It is his further submission that the person by name H.R. Desai to whom the said site has been allotted has approached this Court in W.P. No.17135- 17138/2010 and this Court by order dated 25.03.2013 has quashed the allotment dated 26.06.2013 and subsequently it has ordered to exercise the power under Regulation 4 and take a decision in the matter by getting the approval of the Government. Under such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argued and submitted that the documents which have been produced in the charge sheet clearly goes to show that the allotment letter and the applications which have been given by the petitioner/accused are fabricated documents. It is his further submission that the date of birth and even the address given are quite different. By taking advantage of the similarity of the name of both the persons, the petitioner/accused impersonated and has got allotted the site in his favour and has also deposited the amount. It is his further submission that the letter given by the petitioner/accused dated 06.12.2013 itself goes to show that he has confessed for having committed the offence. Under such circumstance, that itself is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused by fabricating the documents has committed the offence. It is his further submission that many such allotments and creations have been made in respect of the same site. In that light, it indicates that enquiry is required to be made in this behalf. It is his further submission that to the same address, many allotments have been made in that light, that itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused has involved in the said offence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the investigation has been completed and already the charge sheet has been filed. Whether the impersonation is there, fabrication of the document is there or not, is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial? 6. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the investigation has been completed and already the charge sheet has been filed. Whether the impersonation is there, fabrication of the document is there or not, is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial? At this juncture, if any such facts are taken into consideration, it is not going to substantiate the case of the prosecution which is a question of fact. In that light, a detailed trial is required. He further supports the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 8. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the said site bearing No.177-LIG has been allotted in the name of Sri. H.R. Desai S/o. R.H. Desai and the petitioner/accused by impersonation of the said person, has got allotted the said site in his favour and a conditional sale deed has also been got executed on 26.07.2013. But on perusal of the records at Annexure D, it indicates that it is an application given by the petitioner/accused to the Karnataka Housing Board. Even the application given in the charge sheet indicates that the photographs which have been mentioned are shown in the both applications are of the petitioner/accused and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the date of birth and other details which have been given are differing. But the address if it is seen, the address given in both the applications are one and the same. When an application has been given for the purpose of allotment and in-pursuance of the application and after scrutiny by the officials of respondent No.2, the allotment letter has also been issued as per Annexure E dated 26.06.2013 and in-pursuance of the same, a conditional sale deed of the site has been included by the Board as per Annexure G. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner/accused has fabricated the documents by impersonation with an ulterior motive to get the allotment of the site allotted to H.R. Desai. Be that as it may. Be that as it may. To bring home an offence it must in the first instance establish that he pretended himself to be some other person or imaginary person or he knowingly substituted one person for another or represented that he or any other person is a person other than he or such person other than what he really is. By such process he cheated some innocent person. In the instant case on hand, the person Sri. H.R. Desai S/o R.H. Desai has not filed any complaint alleging that he has been impersonated him and cheated. Leave apart this how the complainant BDA has been cheated is also not forthcoming. Petitioner/accused has received letter of allotment from the complainant then thereafter, he deposited the amount and they executed after verification of documents, a conditional sale deed. There are no ingredients of the any of the offences alleged as against the petitioner/accused. 9. Be that as it may. Even on perusal of the letter which has been given on 06.12.2013, it has been specifically mentioned that he was also one of the aspirants for the allotment of the site from the Housing Board. In that light, he has received the allotment letter and in-pursuance of the said letter, he has deposited the amount of the site and got executed the conditional sale deed and after coming to know the said fact, the said site has been allotted to some other person, he has given the letter for cancellation and for return of the said amount. What is required to constitute the offence under Indian Penal Code is that he must have an intention to cause such offence. In the absence of any such material, the proceedings initiated as against the petitioner/accused appears to be an abuse of process of law. Be that as it may. 10. Even as could be seen from the records, it indicates that it is the Karnataka Housing Board. It is the Authority who is going to receive the application and subsequently the allotment letter is also going to be issued and thereafter, in-pursuance of the allotment letter, the amount is also going to be got deposited by the said Board and thereafter a conditional sale deed is going to be executed. It is the Authority who is going to receive the application and subsequently the allotment letter is also going to be issued and thereafter, in-pursuance of the allotment letter, the amount is also going to be got deposited by the said Board and thereafter a conditional sale deed is going to be executed. If all these transactions are going to be made without there being any collusion or the verification of the documents, the said transactions will not take place. 11. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, that too, when other persons have not been erred as an accused, under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any intention and as the letter given by the petitioner/accused indicates his bonafides, under such circumstances, the initiation of the proceedings and continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner/accused appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In that light, the petitioner has made out a case so as to quash the proceedings. 12. In the light of the discussions held by me above, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.18072/2016 (Crime No.221/2014) pending on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC are hereby quashed .