JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2475 of 2018, including the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons have committed forgery to receive and deliver money and movable property and have also committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and used forged documents as genuine. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 18.10.2021 without any application of mind in most mechanical manner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inquiry witnesses C.W.1 after being expelled from the association for proven misconduct has been spearheading the vicious campaign to malign the reputation of the association and its members by filing false and frivolous cases against the association and its office bearers and the witness is a named accused in a criminal case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has merely referred to the documents filed by the opposite party no.2- complainant and the said documents does not disclose any offence for which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the Secretary of Jharkhand State Cricket Association and the petitioner no.2 is the treasurer of the same and the petitioner no.3 was not holding any post and was only the member of Jharkhand State Cricket Association hence, the petitioner no.3 was not even a party to any decision of the association. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the alleged occurrence has taken place at Ranchi, therefore, the complaint at Jamshedpur is not maintainable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the alleged occurrence has taken place at Ranchi, therefore, the complaint at Jamshedpur is not maintainable. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the opposite party no.2- complainant being a stranger cannot be permitted to raise any plea of forgery and other offences having been committed by the petitioners. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a settled principle of law that when a sale deed is executed conveying a property to the purchaser by making false representation of ownership, a stranger cannot set the criminal law in motion and the same analogy can be applied in this case also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89 , paragraph no.8 of which reads as under:- 8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604 ] . A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “(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 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. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 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. (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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that as in this case also there is no legal evidence and the evidence is clearly inconsistent with the accusation made hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be quashed in view of the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice as were set out in some detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.102 of the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 , paragraph no.60 and 89 of which reads as under:- 60. The object of investigation under Section 202 CrPC is “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. The enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for issuance of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made as an instrument of harassment to the accused. The law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made as an instrument of harassment to the accused. As discussed earlier, issuance of process to the accused calling upon them to appear in the criminal case is a serious matter and lack of material particulars and non-application of mind as to the materials cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is only a procedural irregularity. In the present case, the satisfaction of the Magistrate in ordering issuance of process to the respondents is not well founded and the order summoning the accused cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court holding that there was compliance of the procedure under Section 202 CrPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 89. The FIR or the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the allegations do not make out a prima facie case or allegations are so improbable that no prudent person would ever reach a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. So far as the allegation of retention of Documents 29 to 54 is concerned, in our view, there is no allegation as to when and how the original documents were removed and retained by the respondents. Where on the admitted facts, no prima facie case is made out against the accused for proceeding or when the Supreme Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court, the Supreme Court has the power to quash any judicial proceedings in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the present case is a fit case for exercising the power in quashing the criminal complaint qua Documents 29 to 54 also. (Emphasis supplied) and submits that as the allegations made out in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses do not make out prima facie case and the allegations are so improbable that no prudent person would ever reach just conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Hence, this is a fit case where the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed. 7. Hence, this is a fit case where the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment in the case of S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 , paragraph no.21 of which reads as under:- 21. Xxxxxxxxxx The agreement was further renewed for a period of one year. It is not the case that there was no supply of goods at all as it has come on record that there was supply of 400 tons of fertilizer, maybe it was far less than the required quantity. The allegations made against the appellants other than Appellant 7 are very vague and bald. From the material that was placed before the Magistrate, even prima facie, it cannot be said that there was conspiracy or connivance between the other appellants and Appellant 7. If the appellants have committed breach of agreement, it is open to Respondent 2 to seek redressal in a competent court or forum to recover damages, if permissible in law in case he had sustained any loss. In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. (Emphasis supplied) and submits that from the materials that were placed before the learned Magistrate even prima facie it cannot be said that there was conspiracy between the petitioners and the co-accused persons. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614, paragraph no.21 of which reads as under:- 21. A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of a fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope and expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the accused. A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of a fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope and expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the accused. Such a course of action is not contemplated in the system of criminal jurisprudence that has been evolved by the courts over the years. A criminal trial, on the contrary, is contemplated only on definite allegations, prima facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the accused which fact has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence in the course of the trial against the accused. We are, therefore, of the view that the criminal proceeding in the present form and on the allegations levelled is clearly not maintainable against either of the appellant-accused G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora. and submits that the criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of a fishing or roving enquiry and in this case, exactly a fishing and roving enquiry is sought by the complainant in shape of filing this criminal complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar & Anr. vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 , and submits that it cannot be the law that the complainant may first place before the Magistrate some of the facts and evidence in his possession and if he fails he can then adduce some more evidence and so on and as in this case as from the facts produced before the learned Magistrate, no offence punishable in law is made out, hence the complainant shall not be allowed to bring more documents, to establish the allegations against the petitioners made by him. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inquiry witness no. 2 in paragraph no.15 has not given any satisfactory reply as to on the basis of which document, he could know about the misappropriation of the funds by the petitioners and the co-accused persons. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inquiry witness no. 2 in paragraph no.15 has not given any satisfactory reply as to on the basis of which document, he could know about the misappropriation of the funds by the petitioners and the co-accused persons. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2475 of 2018, including the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2475 of 2018, including the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 2475 of 2018 that the documents mentioned in serial nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the said order, are the relevant documents. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the cheque no.13266 dated 15.03.2016 has been issued in favour of Sri Balajee Tent House for Rs.49,75,770/- against the bill no. 926 of the said Balajee Tent House for an amount of Rs.30,43,665.09/- this is one instance of the several instances of misappropriation of the funds of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, by the petitioners by abusing their position as the office bearers of the said Cricket Association. It is then submitted that the by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and be allowed to go scot-free at this nascent stage. It is then submitted that the by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and be allowed to go scot-free at this nascent stage. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that it is evident from the statement of account issued by the bank concerned; the entry dated 19.04.2011 of which shows that by two transactions, on that day, the petitioner no.1 himself has withdrawn Rs.20,000/- each i.e. in total Rs.40,000/- in his own name personally, which is obviously for the purpose of misappropriation and similarly by entry dated 11.08.2010 and 17.06.2009 in the said statement of account issued by the bank of the Cricket Association; also several withdrawals from the bank account of the Cricket Association, have been made personally by the petitioners, and, thus, the petitioners have misappropriated the funds of the Cricket Association and these are the documentary evidence of misappropriation of the funds by the petitioners and the co-accused persons in criminal conspiracy, with one another. 12. In respect of allegation of forgery, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in the letter of acceptance of Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. under description of items serial no.2 of “Description of items”, the amount mentioned by the said company was Rs.5,50,00,000/- but the same has been forged by substituting the same by making a false document in another sheet of paper by enhancing the amount to Rs.6,50,00,000/- and these are the specific and direct allegation against the petitioners of having committed forgery in criminal conspiracy with one another. Hence, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that no offence is made out against the petitioners is not true. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Sing Etc. reported in 2023 AIR (SC) 1987, paragraph no.4.1 of which reads as under:- 4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in exercise of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners can take their defence at the appropriate stage during the trial but certainly at this nascent stage in view of overwhelming material regarding the offences committed by the petitioners certainly, the entire criminal proceeding ought not to be quashed. 14. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the courts at Jamshedpur has no territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in this criminal miscellaneous petition itself in paragraph no.17 at page no.22 the petitioners himself has not disputed the fact that the registered office of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association is situated at Jamshedpur obviously and the offences having been committed in respect of the business of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, certainly the competent court at Jamshedpur has the local limits of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences committed in respect of the said Jharkhand State Cricket Association. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 15. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here it is a settled principle of law that a legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, as is evident from the materials placed before the learned Magistrate itself that there are allegations of tampering with the bills of M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. -the company which was engaged in the works of Jharkhand State Cricket Association, the amount has been enhanced to Rs.6,50,00,000/- from Rs.5,50,00,000/- by altering the same in unauthorized manner. There are materials to show from the statement of bank accounts of the Cricket Association that the petitioner no.1 himself has personally withdrawn the money from the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, allegedly for misappropriating the funds of the Cricket Association. There are materials to suggest that against the bills of Rs.30,43,655.09/- of Shri Balajee Tent House; the payment of Rs.49,75,770/- has been made to Shri Balajee Tent House; by the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with one another; which obviously discloses the misappropriation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant cannot be ascertained by this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by holding a mini trial but certainly this is not a case if the allegation made in the complaint, documents placed before the learned Magistrate, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of inquiry witnesses are treated to be true in its entirety still, no offence is made out rather the same makes out the offences for which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that none of the clauses of the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) is made out for this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 17. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that none of the clauses of the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) is made out for this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 17. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the complainant has no locus standi to set the criminal Law in motion is concerned, as no way associated with the management of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdass Srinivas Nayak & Anr. 1984 (2) SCC 5 : 1988 AIR 1531 has in no uncertain manner laid down the law that the concept of locus standi of the complainant is alien to criminal jurisprudence except when the statute specifically provides. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case; the offences involved in this case are 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Indian Penal Code do not specifically provide that the aggrieved person or the victim or any specific person can only set the law in motion in respect of the offences concerned. Hence, the complainant being a member of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, cannot be said to have no locus standi for setting the law in motion by filing the complaint. Hence, this limb of argument of the petitioners has no leg to stand and is without any merit. 19. So far as the judgment of Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors. (Supra) is concerned, the same is no doubt a settled principle of law, but the same basically relates to the power of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 20. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra) is concerned, the same relates to the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the same is a settled principle of law but as this is not a case of cheating, hence the ratio of the said judgment, in the considered opinion of this Court, has no applicability to the facts of this case. 21. Though the same is a settled principle of law but as this is not a case of cheating, hence the ratio of the said judgment, in the considered opinion of this Court, has no applicability to the facts of this case. 21. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Supra) is concerned, no doubt the same is the settled principle of law but in this case as already indicated above, the complainant has placed before the learned Magistrate, the same documents from which the learned counsel for the opposite parties demonstrated misappropriation of the funds of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association by the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with one another and of forging the document by altering the bills of the company which has given the works of Jharkhand State Cricket Association to siphon off the money of the said Association, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the complaint is instituted for the purpose of fishing. 22. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2475 of 2018, including the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside. 23. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.