JUDGMENT : 1. The present bunch of petitions has been preferred seeking quashing of FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The impugned FIRs pertain to the offences under Sections 224, 406, 420, & 120-B IPC. 2. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Sheetal Mittal, Padam Kumar and Prashant Garg, submitted that the said persons are engaged in trade and business at Delhi. And received certain goods from the other accused persons, namely, Harsh Garg and Sarvesh. It was also contended that the said three persons did not have any direct involvement in the alleged crime in question. It was further contended that the said three persons are the final consumers in the chain of transaction and have been falsely implicated in this case. 2.1 In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2780 . 3. Mr. Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Harsh and Sarvesh, submitted that a perusal of the impugned FIRs would reveal that the alleged crime in question was committed through certain agents, and that, the issue in question of purely of civil nature, to which criminality is sought to be attributed. It was further submitted that the petitioners have made certain payments to the respondent-complainant(s), and that, therefore, it is a case of alleged non-payment of dues, and not that of cheating, and like offences. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas, appearing for the respondent-complainant(s) and; Mr. S.K. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor alongwith the concerned investigating officer, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, and submitted that upon investigation, the documents submitted on behalf of the petitioners reveal that the G.S.T. number mentioned on the concerned invoice was not correct. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the accused-petitioners were in fact operating in the nature of a criminal cartel, and that, such offences were also committed in other States across the country. 4.2 The investigating officer present in person made a categorical statement that originally, during the initial phase of the investigation, the accused-petitioners remained absconding, and that, the accused-petitioners Sheetal Mittal and Padam Kumar blatantly denied their i and pleaded ignorance in connection with the alleged crime in question. 4.2 The investigating officer present in person made a categorical statement that originally, during the initial phase of the investigation, the accused-petitioners remained absconding, and that, the accused-petitioners Sheetal Mittal and Padam Kumar blatantly denied their i and pleaded ignorance in connection with the alleged crime in question. However, upon further investigation, they submitted documents stating that they made certain purchases through the other accused-petitioner Harsh and Sarvesh and submitted certain documents in pursuance of the same; but on due verification, the said documents were found to be fabricated, as the G.S.T. number, name of the Firm and other details were found to be non-existent. To substantiate such submissions, the investigating officer also placed before this Court the concerned case diaries. 5. In his rejoinder arguments, Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel, submitted that an unfortunate situation has arisen in this case, as accused-Prashant was implicated with the sole intention to apprehend his father, while alleging his being an absconder and accused in the alleged crime in question. And that, accused-Prashant was in fact conducts a dry fruits business completely separate from the business activities of his father. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the case diaries produced before this Court and the judgment cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the parameters for quashment of the FIR have been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC Supp (1) 335. 8. On a consideration of the factual backdrop of the case at hand, this Court does not find it to be falling within the parameters for quashment of the FIR, as laid down in the precedent law of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra). 9. Furthermore, looking into the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents and a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy involved herein requires due trial by the competent court. 10. This Court also finds that the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners does not render any assistance to their case. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present petitions do not merit invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. 10. This Court also finds that the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners does not render any assistance to their case. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present petitions do not merit invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.