JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. This petition, under Section, 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Shri Pulak Dev S/o Late P.C. Dev of Subarnarekha Apartment, AD-1/1A-Rajarhat Road, Baguiati, Kalkata for quashing the FIR dated 26.06.2000 and Charge-Sheet No. 03/2004, dated 28.05.2004, and criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 05/2000/294, under section 120(B)/420 Indian Penal Code pending before the JMFC, Tawang. 2. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. U. Bori, the learned Addl. PP for the state of Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, the learned Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 2, i.e. Executive Engineer (power), Tawang Electrical Division. 3. The factual background leading to filing of this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is adumbrated herein-below: “In 18.03.1993, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh entered into an agreement with M/s SPML Infra Limited (hereinafter, FIRM) for construction, supply of commissioning of the Nurarnang Hydel Power Project at Tawang, including three generating units at a consideration of Rs. 24.96 Crore (Approximately). Thereafter, the firm executed the project on turned key basis including construction of all the civil infrastructures and supply of the Turbine runner sets and equipment in Tawang District, under the Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the project was commissioned in the year, 1996. Before installation of Turbine runners, the Power Department received test and guarantee certificate, from the Turbine runner/supplier vide letter dated 13.04.1995, and as such there was bona-fide belief that the supplied turbine runners were of standard quality as per agreement and on receipt of the certificate, turbine runners were installed at the site. The project started functioning from 1996. Thereafter, the department has issued certificate certifying satisfaction over commissioning in the year 1997. After 4 years of commissioning of the project, in the year 2000, some defects were found in the 3 turbines, and on complaint of the department, the firm replaced the defective turbines, but, again some problem arose and after frequent breakdown of turbines, a broken piece of turbine was sent for testing and it was found that it does not conformed with the specification incorporated in the agreement, as the composition of runner found to be containing 5% nickel and 7.5% chromium against 4% and 14% respectively, as per the agreement. But, in view of the letter dated 07.03.2000, it was confirmed that turbine runner supplied by manufacturer was made of stainless steel with the approximate contain of 4% nickel and 14% chromium as per the specification in the agreement which does not tally with the test report of various testing agencies. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer (power), Tawang Electrical Division lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang on 09.06.2000, against the Managing Director and Director of the firm alleging, inter alia, amongst others that the company provides inferior quality materials in manufacturing the turbines, in contravention with the provision of contract as the specific percentage of nickel and chromium required to contain in the equipment supplied, resulting frequent damage of runner turbine bucket. Upon the said complaint, the O.C. Jang Police Station registered a case being Jang P.S. Case No. 05/2000, under Section 420/120(B) of Indian Penal Code corresponding G.R. Case No. 05/2000/294. Thereafter, the case was handed over to the crime branch (SIT), Itanagar, for further investigation which culminated in submission of charge-sheet dated 28.05.2004, under Section 420/120(B) Indian Penal Code before JMFC, Tawang, against the petitioner and Managing Director and Director of the firm SPML and some other government officers. Accordingly, the learned Court below has issued process to the petitioner to appear before him and to stand trial.” 4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the Charge-Sheet concerning him. 5. Mr. K. Lollen, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retried form his service in the year, 2009. He served as a Chief Engineer for a brief period w.e.f. 26.07.1995 to 20.08.1996 and the official formalities of the project was completed by his predecessor Chief Engineer, namely, Darsan Singh and the construction work started in the year, 1993. While the construction work was going on, some changes/technical deviation, as regards the turbine and other accessories of the project was necessitated. It is further submitted that the petitioner has issued the corrigendum for amendment on the basis of recommendation of AHEC, Roorkee (the Consultant), and on the basis of field survey report, and as per the actual site condition, and there is no material to show that the deviation of chemical composition was made on the basis of the corrigendum issued by the petitioner. It is further submitted that project successfully run for 4 years from 1996 to 2000, and the defect was detected only in the year 2000. It is further submitted that no prima-facie material is there against the accused for commission of the offence under Section 120 (B)/420 Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the two Directors of the SPML filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing FIR and charge-sheet and after hearing the same, this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition. Then, against the dismissal order, the Directors preferred one Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing both side vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2020, allowed the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 590/2019, and set aside and quashed the FIR and Charge-Sheet against the two Directors of SPML. Mr. Lollen submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that there is no specific allegation and averments in the FIR and even in the charge-sheet also to show that fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused was from the very beginning of the transaction and as the ingredients of offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code have not been established, Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the proceeding and the present petitioner also stands in the same footing and therefore, Mr. Lollen contended to allow the petition. 6. Whereas, Mr. U. Bori, the learned Addl. PP has submitted that there are sufficient material against the accused who issued corrigendum for changing technical deviation to the FIRM. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in host of decisions has settled the legal position in respect of quashing of the FIR and Charge-Sheet and in the present case, Charge-Sheet and FIR cannot be quashed at this stage as only during trial, and after recording of prosecution evidence the ingredients of the offence could be found out. Mr. Bori, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. L. Perme, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, besides subscribing the submission of ld. Addl. P.P. also submitted that while considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not entitled to embark on appreciation of evidence. Mr. Bori, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. L. Perme, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, besides subscribing the submission of ld. Addl. P.P. also submitted that while considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not entitled to embark on appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised on exceptional ground being shown and that the petitioner never stand in the same footing with that of the Directors of the FIRM and the corrigendum was issued without approval of the Board, and the payment was also made without approval and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submission of learned advocates of both sides, we have gone through the record of learned Court below carefully. 9. It appears that the agreement for construction, supply and commissioning of Nurarnang Hydel Project at Tawang on turnkey basis, was entered into by the power department of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh with M/s SPML Infra Ltd. on 18.03.1993. The project was commissioned in the year, 1996. Production was started from 1996. A certificate for certifying satisfactory commissioning of the project was also issued by the power department in the year 1997. Therefore, the defect was detected in the year, 2000 after successful running of the project for 4 years. 10. It also appears that there is nothing against the petitioner in the First Information Report (FIR). Whatever allegation is there in the First Information Report (FIR), the same is against the M/S SPML only. However, in the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has mentioned the individual role played by each of the accused in committing the offence. The role played by the petitioner Pulok Deb is brought up as under:- Shri Pulok Deb assumed charge of the Chief Engineer (Power) on 26.07.1995 and was in charge of the same till 28.06.1996. The construction work of Nuranang Hyrel Project was started in the year 1993, during the period of the then Chief Engineer (P) Shri Darshan Singh. All official formalities for the project were prepared during his the period of Shri Darshan Singh. After assuming the charge of Chief Engineer (P) he issued a corrigendum for changing of specification on 09.08.1995. The construction work of Nuranang Hyrel Project was started in the year 1993, during the period of the then Chief Engineer (P) Shri Darshan Singh. All official formalities for the project were prepared during his the period of Shri Darshan Singh. After assuming the charge of Chief Engineer (P) he issued a corrigendum for changing of specification on 09.08.1995. It was mentioned in the Corrigendum that amendment has been made as per the actual site condition and as per recommendation of the AHEC, Roorkee and also as per approval accorded by the Superintending Engineer (Civil) on the body of the drawing as per Issue No. 6, further there was number of changes in the technical deviation of the turbine. It is also stated that after the issue of the corrigendum on 09.08.1995, no serious effort has been taken by the DOP to get the inspection done at the location of the manufacturer i.e. M/S Beacon Neyrpic-Chennai, which was essential. It has been also stated that the machine had been received at the site by the DOP, before issuance of the corrigendum. And the drawing No. 6 has been made to regularize the deviation. The rate, which was given by the DOP as regard to the three turbine, was Rs. 5,18,50,049/. But, on verification from the manufacturing company, the price of the three turbines was found to be of Rs. 161.04 lakhs, including the freight charges/Sale Tax/Insurance etc. Nowhere, the DOP had made any attempt to find out the actual cost of the turbines from the manufacturers. It is further stated that after installation, there was frequent breakdown of turbines as the same could not resist the force of water. When the frequent breakdown was checked by experts of BHEL, they indicated that sub-standard runner materials, low thickness of runner bucket ring mating with flange, possibility of poor quality of casting may be the reason. The opinion of BHEL was verified by National Test House, Calcutta and National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi and the composition of the materials i.e. the Nickel and Chromium dose not conform to the standard of mentioned in the MOU, which clearly indicates that the material of the Runner Turbines was of inferior quality. It is also stated the Executive Engineer (Electrical) who was the I/C of the project, had refused to receive the turbines as was not as per specification. It is also stated the Executive Engineer (Electrical) who was the I/C of the project, had refused to receive the turbines as was not as per specification. On this issue the Chief Engineer (P) has issued the Corrigendum changing the specification. And the turbines were received and payment of Rs. 2516.08 Lakhs was made to the company. It is also stated that the omission and neglect of duties on the part of Pulok Deb the then Chief Engineer (P), thus, bring out an inference of involvement/connivance with the whole episode with the Firm M/S SPML in conjunction with the then Superintending Engineer Shri Tomy Ete to cheat the Govt. in the receipt of Sub-Standard machineries of the of Nuranang project as well as civil Construction works, and thereby embezzle Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 867.69 Lakhs. 11. Now let it be seen whether from the commission and omissions, as reflected in the Charge-Sheet, the offence of 420/120(B) Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner Shri Pulok Deb. 12. Before a discussion is directed in this regard it would be appropriate to discuss some case laws holding the field so as to deal with the issue with greater precision. In Mahadeo Prasad vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the offence of cheating is established when the following ingredients are proved, namely:- (i) That, the representation made by the accused was false. (ii) That, the accused knew that the representation was false at the very time when he made it. (iii) That, he made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the person to whom it was made. (iv) That, he thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. 13. In Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Section 420 IPC deals with cheating. Essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are:- (i) cheating. (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security. (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. 14. Essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are:- (i) cheating. (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security. (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. 14. Thus, the basic ingredients of the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code would be cheating with the intention to cheat from the very inception. In other words, to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise and such dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise. 15. In the case in hand, the allegations leveled in the charge sheet against the petitioner Pulok Deb, even accepting the same as true, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 420 Indian Penal Code are made out against him. There is nothing in the charge sheet and on the record of the ld. Court below, to show that he had fraudulent and dishonest intention from the very beginning. Rather, it is the version of the prosecution that all the formalities in respect of commissioning of the Nuranang project by the SPML was completed during the tenure of Shri Darshan Sing, the erstwhile Chief Engineer (P), in the year 1993. The MOU was signed for commissioning of the project on turnkey basis. The petitioner comes into the picture only in the year 1995, when he assumed the charge of Chief Engineer (P) on 26.07.1995 and remained in charge till 28.06.1996. Given that he has issued the Corrigendum for changing of specification on 09.08.1995, it appears from the record that he never did the same as per his own whim or caprice. Rather it is the case of the prosecution that he did so on the basis of recommendation made as per the actual cite condition and as per recommendation of the AHEC, Roorkee and also as per approval accorded by the Superintending Engineer (Civil) on the body of the drawing as per issue No. 6. From this commission or omission it cannot be said that he had intention to deceive the Govt. As stated above he came into picture only in the year 1995. From this commission or omission it cannot be said that he had intention to deceive the Govt. As stated above he came into picture only in the year 1995. All formalities for commissioning of the project completed in the year 1993 and construction started in the same year. 16. Given that after issuing the Corrigendum on 09.08.1995, no serious effort has been taken by the DOP to get the inspection done at the location of the manufacturer i.e. M/S Beacon Neyrpic Chennai, which was essential according to the investigating agency, it cannot attract the culpability prescribed under section 420 Indian Penal Code. At best, it may amounts dereliction of duty that may entail departmental action, not of criminal prosecution under section 420 Indian Penal Code. At the same time it also cannot be ignored that the MOU was signed for commissioning the project on turnkey basis. Under such circumstances, existence of any clause in the contract agreement for inspection of the turbines at the manufacturing site is also required to be looked into. The charge sheet is totally silent in this regard. 17. The other allegation made in the charge sheet that the composition of the materials i.e. the Nickel and Chromium dose not conform to the standard as mentioned in the MOU clearly indicates that the materials of the Runner Turbines was of inferior quality, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the same as there was no scope of verifying the same at the time delivery of turbine. Besides, the Department of Power has received Test Guarantee Certificate from the Supplier vide letter dated 13.04.1995. As such there was bona-fide belief that the supplied turbine was of standard quality conforming to the agreement. The defect was detected only in the year 2000, after four years of successful running of the project, since it’s commissioning in the year 1996. It also appears from the charge sheet that the investigating agency has bring out an inference of involvement/connivance of the petitioner with the whole episode with the Firm M/S SPML in conjunction with the then Superintending Engineer Shri Tomy Ete to cheat the Govt. in the receipt of Sub-Standard machineries of the of Nuranang project as well as civil Construction works and thereby embezzle Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 867.69 Lakhs. But, there is no material on the record to substantiate the same. in the receipt of Sub-Standard machineries of the of Nuranang project as well as civil Construction works and thereby embezzle Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 867.69 Lakhs. But, there is no material on the record to substantiate the same. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases discussed herein above, to the facts herein this case, it cannot be said that even a prima-facie case under section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner-Shri Pulok Deb. 18. It may be mentioned here that another two accused namely Shri S.K. Sethi, Managing Director and Shri Anil Sethi Director of SPML, approached this court for quashing the FIR and charge sheet against them under section 482 Cr.P.C. But, having been unsuccessful, they preferred a special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, i.e. Sushil Sethi and Another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 240 , has quashed the proceeding against the two Director of the SPML, considering the materials place on record along with the FIR and Charge-Sheet and held that no ingredients of section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out against them. Mr. K. Lollen, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, has rightly pointed this out and rightly submitted that the present petitioner also stands on the same footing. We find no ground to disagree with him. Though Mr. U. Bori, the ld. Addl. P.P. who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not on the same footing with that of the Director, yet, considering the matter in its entirety, especially the chronology of events, this Court left unconvinced that the present petitioner stands in a different footing from that of the Directors of the FIRM. 19. Taking all the aspects into account and also the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, it cannot be said that a prima-facie case, under Section 420/120 (B) Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very beginning. He came into the scene only in the year 1995, when he assumed charge of Chief Engineer (Power) on 26.07.1995. The agreement with the FIRM was entered into by the Department of Power, Govt. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very beginning. He came into the scene only in the year 1995, when he assumed charge of Chief Engineer (Power) on 26.07.1995. The agreement with the FIRM was entered into by the Department of Power, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in year 1993, the project was commissioned in year, 1996 and it successfully run for a period of 4 year and defect was detected in the year, 2000. It also appears that the complaint came to be lodged on 09.06.2000, when the Deputy General Manager of SPML has issued final notice to the complainant Executive Engineer (E), Tawang to take over the project, vide its letter dated 09.03.2000. 20. It is a fact that during his tenure as Chief Engineer, the Corrigendum for changing technical specification was issued. But, it was made as per recommendation of ground technical staff and AHEC, Roorke and as per approval accorded by Superintending Engineer (Civil). There is nothing on the record of the ld. Court below to show that the change was made with any evil design. It is on the record that it was in the contract agreement that the FIRM was supposed to carry out details survey and investigation to ascertain actual head available at site before taking up of construction work and as such the FIRM has, at the time of finalization of design and drawing considered changes as per the actual site condition. 21. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under:- “The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 , Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 , State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 , Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 , M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala-fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out:- (a) purely a civil wrong. (b) purely a criminal offence. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out:- (a) purely a civil wrong. (b) purely a criminal offence. (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 11. Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the Indian Oil Corporation’s case (supra), it was held as under:- “13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protects the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also [pic] leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, Para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 22. Here in this case, the allegation levelled in the First Information Report (FIR) is against the two Directors of SPML, namely Shri S.K. Sethi and Anil Sethi only. It pertains to supplying and commissioning of the turbines manufactured with inferior quality materials, in contravention of the provision of the contract agreement. Prima-facie, it appears to be a breach of contract and essentially it is of civil nature. The complaint came to be lodged on 09.06.2000, when the Deputy General Manager of SPML has issued final notice to the complainant Executive Engineer(E), Tawang to take over the project with effect from 01.04.2000, vide its letter dated 09.03.2000. It appears from the record that arbitration proceeding are also pending between the parties. 23. As discussed herein above, there is no allegation in the First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner Pulok Deb. The charge sheet is also bereft of even the basic facts, which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence of 420 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for invoking the inherent power of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the FIR dated 26.06.2000, and Charge-Sheet No. 03/2004, dated 28.05.2004 and criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 05/2000/294, under section 120(B)/420 Indian Penal Code, pending before the JMFC, Tawang, so far it relates only to the petitioner-Shri Pulok Deb, stands quashed and set-aside. Against rest of the charge sheeted accused, the proceeding shall continue in accordance with law.