ORDER : The petitioner is a dealer of the petroleum products manufactured by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). He is the first accused in the case C.C.No.211/2019 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. 2. The first information report in the aforesaid case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to also as 'the complainant') in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). 3. After completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station filed final report (Annexure-A) against two accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case, as against the petitioner herein, is as follows: On 17.08.2018, at about 07:30 hours, the complainant purchased diesel for Rs.2,369.58/-from the petrol pump by name 'M/s.Thajudeen' and filled it in the car KL-02-AV-8736. Thereafter, when the car was driven for some distance, it started shivering. On inspection of the car in the showroom, it was found that the diesel filled in the car was mixed with water and that damage had been caused to the internal parts of the vehicle, resulting in loss of Rs.4,00,000/-to the complainant. The first accused was the dealer appointed by the HPCL and who was conducting the petrol pump. He sold adulterated diesel and thereby cheated the complainant and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. This petition under Section 482 of the Code is filed by the first accused for quashing Annexure-A final report filed against him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) The allegations in the final report do not constitute the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner. (2) Sample of diesel was collected not in accordance with the procedure prescribed and therefore, the certificate of chemical analysis produced by the prosecution in respect of the sample cannot be relied upon to prove the charge against the petitioner. (2) Sample of diesel was collected not in accordance with the procedure prescribed and therefore, the certificate of chemical analysis produced by the prosecution in respect of the sample cannot be relied upon to prove the charge against the petitioner. (3) Annexure-C test report, which is based on the analysis of sample conducted in the laboratory of the petroleum company, would show that the diesel sold by the petitioner was of the prescribed standard. (4) The complainant had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and therefore, criminal proceedings will not lie against the petitioner. 8. The complainant had purchased diesel and filled it in the car from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner in the name 'M/s.Thajudeen'. The petitioner, the first accused in the case, was the dealer of HPCL. It is admitted in the petition that the petitioner and his brother have been conducting the petrol pump by name M/s.Thajudeen for the last so many years. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no dishonest inducement made by the petitioner and it was not on the basis of any such inducement that the complainant purchased diesel from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner. 10. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is well-settled that deception of a person and dishonest inducement of the person so deceived are necessary ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. 11. The petitioner was the authorised dealer of HPCL, the oil company. When diesel is offered for sale at a fixed price in a petrol pump conducted by an authorised dealer of the oil company, a person who intends to buy diesel is made to believe that the fuel being sold there is of the prescribed standard. 11. The petitioner was the authorised dealer of HPCL, the oil company. When diesel is offered for sale at a fixed price in a petrol pump conducted by an authorised dealer of the oil company, a person who intends to buy diesel is made to believe that the fuel being sold there is of the prescribed standard. Even if it does not amount to an offer for sale made by the dealer but only an invitation to make an offer, even then there is inducement made to a person to buy diesel from there on the belief that what is being sold there is not adulterated fuel. When it turns out that the diesel sold from a retail outlet conducted by an authorised dealer of an oil company is mixed with water, it can be presumed that the inducement made by the seller was dishonest. 12. Deception has in it the element of misleading, of making a person believe something which is not real. It implies causing of a person to believe as true something that is false. The word ‘deceive’ indicates making an impression so that one takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious as genuine. 13. Deception does not necessarily need a false pretence to be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property (See Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras : AIR 1967 SC 986 ). 14. There is ample authority for the proposition that selling adulterated diesel would constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. In Krishna Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police : 1998 Cri.L.J 3806, the Allahabad High Court has held as follows: “It may be mentioned here that if kerosene is mixed with diesel it may amount to breach of the provisions of Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993. That apart selling diesel mixed with kerosene also amounts to cheating which is punishable under Section 420, IPC. In both the writ petitions, report of the analysis shows that diesel has been mixed with kerosene. The petitioners have therefore committed breach of the Control Order as well as offence under Section 420, IPC. The question of quashing the FIR or investigation of the case, therefore, does not arise”. (emphasis supplied) 15. In both the writ petitions, report of the analysis shows that diesel has been mixed with kerosene. The petitioners have therefore committed breach of the Control Order as well as offence under Section 420, IPC. The question of quashing the FIR or investigation of the case, therefore, does not arise”. (emphasis supplied) 15. In State v. Vikas Mahajan : 2003 SCC OnLine JK 64, dealing with a case where the allegation was adulteration of food items, it was held that sale of adulterated food items would attract the offence of cheating. While holding so, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Dayal v. King Emperor : AIR 1924 All 214, in which it has been held as follows: “It is true that the mixing of pig's fat with ghee and selling the mixture would be noxious to the religious and social feelings of both Hindus and Mohamedans but I am of opinion that such an act would not come within the meaning of the expression ‘noxious as food’ which occurs in Section 272, Penal Code, 1860. ........ Of course, if the accused had sold the mixture or attempted to sell it on the pretence that it was pure ghee they would have been guilty of quite a different offence that is to say of cheating or attempt to cheat.” 16. In Emperor v. Bholasing Amersing: AIR 1924 Bom 303, it has been held as follows: “Clearly the complainant was deceived, and whoever made the mixture of saccharine and soda bicarbonate, must be considered as having intended to deceive any purchaser fraudulently or dishonestly, and further it is quite clear that the complainant by such deceit was induced to part with his money. So that if the accused bought saccharine and soda bicarbonate with the intention of mixing them together and selling them if he could to a purchaser as saccharine, and received payment for the goods as saccharine, clearly he would be guilty of cheating. It would follow that if the purchasers are induced to deliver the price of the adulterated mixture, then the offence under Section 420 must be taken to have been committed. (emphasis supplied) 17. It would follow that if the purchasers are induced to deliver the price of the adulterated mixture, then the offence under Section 420 must be taken to have been committed. (emphasis supplied) 17. The Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 provides for the establishment of a Bureau for the harmonious development of the activities of standardisation marking and quality certification of goods and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Bureau of Indian Standards has been established by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of this Act. As per Clause 2(a) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Control Order”), adulteration includes the introduction of any foreign substance into the motor spirit or high speed diesel illegally or unauthorized with the result that the product does not conform to the requirements of the Bureau of Indian Standards specification number IS 2796 and IS 1460 for motor spirit and high speed respectively or any other requirement notified by the Central Government from time to time. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the diesel sold from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner was the diesel supplied to him by the oil company and that the petitioner had not mixed water with the diesel and therefore, there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat any consumer. It is contended by the petitioner that he had no reason to doubt that the diesel supplied by the oil company was mixed with water. 19. The above contention cannot be accepted at this stage of the case. It is a matter of evidence whether the petitioner had knowledge regarding the adulteration of the diesel when he sold it to the complainant. 19. The above contention cannot be accepted at this stage of the case. It is a matter of evidence whether the petitioner had knowledge regarding the adulteration of the diesel when he sold it to the complainant. Clause 3(3) of the Control Order states that, the dealer or consumer shall inspect the container or tank-truck in which he receives the product to ensure that the container or tank-truck, including the seal and lock is not in any manner tampered with, and that the quantity and quality of the product is as per delivery documents issued by the oil company and that the quality of the product conforms to the requirements of the Bureau of Indian Standard specifications number IS 2796 and IS 1460 for motor spirit and high speed diesel respectively, and for this purpose, the oil company shall indicate density of the product at 15 degrees centigrade in the delivery documents and the dealer or consumer shall maintain a record to densities and keep samples of product duly signed jointly by him and the driver of the tank-truck and also take other measures as prescribed by the oil company. Therefore, during the trial of the case, the petitioner may very well prove by positive evidence that the diesel which he sold was the very same diesel which was received by him from the oil company. 20. In the instant case, as per the direction given by the Taluk Supply Officer, the sample of diesel was collected by the Rationing Inspector from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner. The certificate of chemical analysis received from the Government Chemical Examiner's Laboratory shows that the sample was identified as diesel mixed with water and that the sample of liquid was found to contain 66.67 percent by volume of diesel and 33.33 percent by volume of water. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample of diesel was not taken in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Control Order and that the sample was collected not by an officer authorised in that regard. Learned counsel would also contend that the sample was analysed not in a laboratory specified in the Control Order. Therefore, it is contended that the certificate of analysis produced by the prosecution cannot form the basis for the charge levelled against the petitioner. 22. Learned counsel would also contend that the sample was analysed not in a laboratory specified in the Control Order. Therefore, it is contended that the certificate of analysis produced by the prosecution cannot form the basis for the charge levelled against the petitioner. 22. Clause 8 of the Control Order deals with sampling of product and testing. It provides for the manner and method of sampling in detail. It also specifies the laboratories in which the testing of the sample has to be conducted. It is mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the Control Order who are the officers authorised to take sample from a retail outlet. 23. Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under Clause 8 of the Control Order was not followed in the instant case for collecting the sample of diesel and testing it. However, the petitioner is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 read with 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of the provisions of the Control Order. He is prosecuted only for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary that the procedure prescribed under the Control Order for sampling and testing of the product shall be followed in a case in which a person is prosecuted only for an offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. 24. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act provides that, where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. It is clear from this provision that, if the act committed is an offence under two enactments, there is no bar for proceeding against a person under either or any of the two enactments. 25. Annexure-C test report produced by the accused cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in this application filed under Section 482 of the Code. Further, it is a test report obtained in respect of a sample collected on 19.08.2018 from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner. 26. The fact that the complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum does not bar criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the same matter. Further, it is a test report obtained in respect of a sample collected on 19.08.2018 from the petrol pump conducted by the petitioner. 26. The fact that the complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum does not bar criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the same matter. A mere filing of a claim before the Consumer Forum could not make the dispute a civil dispute (See Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani : AIR 1998 SC 2796 ). 27. It is a settled principle of law that, to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety has to be examined on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. At that stage, the High Court is not under an obligation to go deep into the matter or examine the correctness of the allegations. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record. In the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court (See Priti Saraf v. State : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206). 28. In the instant case, it cannot be found that the complaint/charge-sheet does not disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients of the offence under that provision cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/charge-sheet. The question, whether the allegations in the charge-sheet are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of the trial. 29. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that this is not a fit case in which the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code needs to be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 30. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made by this Court in this order on the merits of the case are only for the purpose of deciding this application. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 30. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made by this Court in this order on the merits of the case are only for the purpose of deciding this application. Appreciation of evidence, at the time of final disposal of the case, shall be done by the trial court untrammelled by the observations made in this order on the merits of the case.