ORDER : 1. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. S.B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for the first Respondent-State are physically present before the Court. Sri. Biju V. learned counsel appearing for Smt. Mamatha Shetty, counsel for the second respondent is appearing through video conference and submits a note of Section 34 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 in respect of cognizance of offences by Courts. However, the role of second respondent who is the defacto-complainant is only limited extent as per Section 301 of Cr.P.C. but only for assisting HCGP for State. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and HCGP for State and perused the entire materials placed on record. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 86/2016 of Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The factual matrix of the petition is that the first petitioner is the Executive Director, second and third petitioners are the Senior Sales Officer and Deputy General Manager of Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited respectively and the said industry is a Pubic Limited Company manufacturing the cement having its unit at Bagalkot and the said Company has a good reputation in manufacturing good quality cement for the last sixty years. The Company is equipped with its own laboratories to test the quality of the cement at every stage. The raw materials and the components used in the manufacture of cement are being tested at appropriate stage and monitored to see that the ISI standard as prescribed, are maintained. The fact being so, one M/s. Naidu Constructions, Bengaluru held negotiations with the Company for supplying of cement construction. After finalization of the negotiations, the Company agreed to supply the cement at the construction site as stipulated by the Naidu Constructions. Pursuant to the letter dated 26.11.2015 by the Naidu constructions, the Company supplied totally 1124 metric Tons of OPC cement during the period from 27.11.2015 to 10.02.2016. This being the state of affairs, one Dr. After finalization of the negotiations, the Company agreed to supply the cement at the construction site as stipulated by the Naidu Constructions. Pursuant to the letter dated 26.11.2015 by the Naidu constructions, the Company supplied totally 1124 metric Tons of OPC cement during the period from 27.11.2015 to 10.02.2016. This being the state of affairs, one Dr. Umesh Prabhu who is the second respondent herein claiming to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Gokul Super Specialty Hospital, Vasundhara Nagar, Malpe, Udupi filed a complaint before the Udupi Town Police Station on 18.03.2016, alleging that the petitioners have supplied substandard quality cement for the constructions of their hospital at Udupi and thereby, the petitioners cheated the complainant. Based upon the compliant, the Udupi Town police have registered a FIR against the petitioners in Cr. No. 86/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the letter head of the second respondent. But the allegations made in the complaint as well as the detailed contentions made in its letter head are civil in nature, on that ground alone, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 6. The second limb of the arguments addressed by the learned senior counsel is that the allegations made in the complaint gives rise to the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of Bagalkot Court, hence, Udupi police station has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. It is further argued that the Company is manufacturing good quality cement for the last sixty years and there is no complaint regarding the quality of cement from any customer so far. Hence, it cannot be believed that the company has supplied substandard cement to the complainant. Before lodging FIR against the petitioner’s Company, the police ought to have observed that the company is fully equipped with its own quality control division for supervision of the quality of raw material and other components required for manufacture of cement and is being tested at every stage leaving no room for any kind of substandard quality of cement. As such, the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners are false and untenable. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 7. As such, the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners are false and untenable. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned senior counsel in support of his arguments has taken me through the ingredients of Section 34 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, which reads thus: “34. Cognizance of offences by courts - (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on a compliant made by or under the authority of the Government or Bureau or by any officer empowered in this behalf by the Government or Bureau or by any officer empowered in this behalf by the Government or the Bureau, or any consumer or any association recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government. (2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf shall try any offence punishable under this Act.” 8. Learned senior counsel has also referred Section 25 in chapter seven of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 which reads thus: 25. Inspecting officer - (1) The Bureau may appoint as many inspecting officers as may be necessary for the purpose of inspecting whether any article or process in relation to which the standard mark has been used conforms to the Indian Standard or whether the Standard Mark has been properly used in relation to any article or process with or without license, and for the purpose of performing such other functions as may be assigned to them. Section 14 of the said Act read as follows: 14. Compulsory use of Standard Mark of articles and processes to certain scheduled industries - If the central government, after consulting the Bureau, is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the public interest, it may, by order published in the official Gazette. 9. These are all the relevant provisions of this Act, despite specific provisions of Section 34 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, Udupi Town Police have registered the case against the petitioners in Cr. No. 86/2016 and submitted FIR to the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi to proceed further. 9. These are all the relevant provisions of this Act, despite specific provisions of Section 34 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, Udupi Town Police have registered the case against the petitioners in Cr. No. 86/2016 and submitted FIR to the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi to proceed further. Mere because submitting FIR to the jurisdictional Court having domain to proceed further, when the provision of section 34 of the said Act specifically states that no court shall take cognizance of to proceed further in the matter registered the case in Cr. No. 86 of 2016, the same is emphasized by the Senior Counsel for quashing the criminal proceedings by considering other grounds also. 10. Learned senior counsel has also produced the order issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, dated 17.02.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986: Whereas, as per Section 2(G) “Specified Standard” means the Indian Standard Specification of cement prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards. Whereas, section 3 of the said Act says, Prohibition regarding manufacture, sale distribution etc. - (1) No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf, manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute cement which does not conform to the Specified Standard and which do not bear the Standard Mark. 11. Despite all these relevant provisions and so also the order issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the case in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 was registered by the Udupi Town police station against the petitioners, mere because filing a complaint by the second respondent and some allegations have made in its letter head that the manufactures of Bagalkote cements have cheated them by supplying inferior quality cements, as such, they have committed criminal breach of trust by deceiving them and causing loss, due to this poor quality of cement supplied by petitioners’ Company, second respondent has suffered huge loss and hardship, the said loss is nearly Rs. 40,00,000/- which is only due to deliberation, discussion and consultation for registering the crime against the accused for causing some sort of ignominy. 40,00,000/- which is only due to deliberation, discussion and consultation for registering the crime against the accused for causing some sort of ignominy. Though there are some remedies are available in other provisions of law regarding damages, but the second respondent who is the instrument of filing a complaint and author of the compliant made an endeavor to register a crime against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of IPC. However, there are no ingredients to constitute such offences of criminal breach of trust and in respect of intention to cheat the second respondent, despite it the crime came to be registered against the petitioners and proceed with the case for investigation, therefore, considering the aforesaid specific provisions of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 which referred and so also the ratio of the reliance’s reported in Jeewan Kumar Raut and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 7 SCC 526 whereas, in this judgment, section 22 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 has been referred in respect of taking cognizance except on a complaint made by an appropriate authority then there shall be prohibition in respect of taking cognizance. 12. Learned senior counsel has also referred the following judgments: (i) Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18 (ii) Mahalakshmi Spinners Limited and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2006) SCC Online P&H 1387 Wherein it is held that Electricity Act, 2003 - Quashing of FIR. But in the instant case, the petitioners have sought for quashing the FIR registered by the Udupi Town Police in Cr. No. 86 of 2016. 13. The learned senior counsel has also placed the reliance of the judgment of High Court of Madras dated 29.08.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 595/2011 in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards vs. M/s. Thirumalla Aqua Process, in this judgment section 27 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 has been referred, to submit that powers of delegation to prefer complaints was envisaged therein and complainant in the present case was an officer of the Bureau to whom powers to prefer complaints had been delegated by the Deputy Director of the southern region of the Bureau. 14. But in the instant case, second respondent is the instrument of the complaint. Based upon the complaint, the case in Cr. 14. But in the instant case, second respondent is the instrument of the complaint. Based upon the complaint, the case in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 is registered against the petitioners by the Udupi Town Police. As such, the ratio of reliances are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case. 15. On all these premises, learned Senior Counsel sought for intervention to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 registered by Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi, if not, certainly accused being grave man of that charges would be the sufferer. 16. The learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent/State in her counter to the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the FIR said to have been recorded by the Udupi Town Police Station in Cr. No. 86 of 2016, based upon a complaint filed by the second respondent, the crime came to be registered and the criminal law was set into motion. Soon after the registration of the crime, there was no progress for investigation as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. to follow the requisite conditions. The accused are required to face trial, as the Investigating Agency is in the process to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. Though the provisions have been referred by the learned Senior Counsel, at this stage, it cannot be considered where the case in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 is under progress and it is yet under investigation to carry out by the investigating agency to file charge-sheet against the accused or any other report under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whereas, the second respondent who is an instrument of the complaint as filed by him alleging that the sub-standard cement was supplied for the construction, which constituted some ingredients reflected in the FIR, for the offences which are in conformity with the written complaint filed by Gokul Super Speciality Hospital Private Limited but unless it would be logically ended to file a report under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot arise at this stage to intervene as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. On these premises, learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the petition. 17. On these premises, learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the petition. 17. It in this background, it is relevant to refer certain materials placed before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner. The criminal prosecution in terms of recording an FIR has arisen only on filing of a written complaint by the second respondent before the Udupi Town Police Station and based upon his complaint, the case in Crime No. 86 of 2016 came to be registered. The Station House Officer of the Udupi Town Police Station have been dwelling upon Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and recording of an FIR on the basis of a complaint either in oral or in writing, the complaint discloses that it is fit to register the case to proceed further for taking cognizance under the specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 relating to Section 34 of the said Act. It is relevant to refer that the nature of issues emerged in between the complainant and the accused are civil in nature. Despite the complainant who has chosen to file the written complaint against the accused before the Udupi Town Police Station and based upon his complaint, case in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 came to be registered. Dr. Umesh Prabhu, Chairman and Managing Director of the Gokul Super Speciality Hospital Private Limited in his complaint has specifically stated that due to poor quality of cement supplied by a reputed company, they have suffered huge loss and hardship, the said loss is nearly Rs. 40 Lakhs and has also specifically stated that the manufactures of Bagalkot cements have cheated them by supplying inferior quality cements. They have also committed criminal breach of Trust by deceiving them and have caused loss, it is their allegation, but it appears as civil in nature. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the scope of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which states punishment for criminal breach of trust - Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the scope of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which states punishment for criminal breach of trust - Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. But in the instant case, that the ingredients are even though are absent to constitute the offence, the Udupi Town Police Station have registered a case merely because filing of a complaint against the accused as there is no direct involvement of this accused in commission of an offence in respect of criminal breach of trust as per Section 420 of I.P.C. 1860 by cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. But there has to be distinguished intention from the very beginning in order to hold the accused guilty of commission of an offence even though the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true, the accused cannot be said to have been committed any offence of cheating, since the accused who were not at all in picture in respect of the allegations made against them. Though the complainant alleges to have spent huge money, unless the ingredients are constituted for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., it does not arise for recording FIR as contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. by registered case. The dispute emerged between the petitioners and the second respondent are civil in nature. Though the remedies are available in order to initiate other proceedings, the complainant has chosen to initiate criminal prosecution by filing written complaint in his letter head by approaching Udupi Town Police Station and consequently, registered Cr. No. 86 of 2016. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Govt. No. 86 of 2016. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, AIR 2019 SC 210 , wherein it is held that: “Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers - Nothing in words of Section 482 restricting exercise of power of Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to stage of FIR - High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 even if charge-sheet is filed during pendency of application.” In the judgment referred supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred judgments: (i) AIR 1977 SC 1489 : 1977 Cri. L.J. 1125 (ii) AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 AIR SCW 237 (iii) AIR 2000 SC 754 : 2000 AIR SCW 296 (iv) AIR 2006 SC 2780 : 2006 AIR SCW 3830 (v) 2008 AIR SCW 6459 (vi) AIR 2014 SC 1106 : 2013 AIR SCW 6062 (vii) AIR SCW 6062 (viii) (2011) 7 SCC 59 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment referred supra has also referred the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 : AIR 2006 SC 2780 wherein it has observed that: “Any efforts to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discourage.... Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. Where the allegations in the FIR 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. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide an/or were 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.” 20. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred the judgment of this Court reported in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SC 699 : AIR 1977 SC 1489 , has observed as under: “7.....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice....” 21. In view of the above discussion, by referring the materials as well as ratio of reliance's I have no hesitation in quashing the FIR in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 registered by the Udupi Town Police Station against the petitioners/accused herein. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition is allowed. Consequently the FIR in Crime No. 86 of 2016 dated 18.03.2016 pending before the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Udupi District, Udupi for the alleged offences, is hereby quashed.