JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the criminal proceeding of CR Case No. 01/2019 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panging, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh against the present petitioner. 3. The private respondent had a good relationship with Sri TakarGoi, who had a close relationship with the petitioner TapangTalo, who was an MLA in the year 2017. The private respondent wanted a government job of Political Interpreter and to that effect, he had arranged a bribe of Rs.9,80,000/-, at the behest of TakamGoi. The private respondent was impressed upon by TakarGoi that he will arrange the job through the present petitioner. Accordingly, the money was paid to TakarGoi. Even after passing of a long time, the job was not given to the private respondent. He confronted TakarGoi, who, in turn, took him to Itanagar and introduced him to the present petitioner. It has been stated that the present petitioner informed the private respondent that the said money was already paid to the Deputy Commissioner of Panging for issuing Appointment Letter. That appointment letter was never issued. Therefore, the private respondent filed a complaint against TakarGoi and TapangTalo alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences in exercised of his powers under Section 200 of the CrPC. 4. Now, the present petitioner TapangTalo has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC stating that he has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed error by taking cognizance under Section 200 CrPC without making any enquiry. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsels of both sides. 6. In State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. BhajanLal And Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held --- "102. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsels of both sides. 6. In State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. BhajanLal And Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held --- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. 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. (5) 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. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where 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." (9) In paragraph 41 of Vineet Kumar and others v State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 , the Supreme Court has held- “41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect : (SCC p.379,para 102) 102 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where 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.” (10) On a plaint reading of the complaint petition, it can be held that the story projected by the private respondent is based on only conjecture and surmises. The complaint petition does not disclose even a prima facie case under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC against the present petitioner. In such a factual scenario, there is no possibility of future conviction of the present petitioner. So, allowing the present criminal proceeding before the trial court against the present petitioner would be the abuse of the process of the court. This court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for the High Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the criminal proceeding of CR Case No. 01/2019 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panging, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in respect of the present petitioner Tapang Talo is quashed.