ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. a prayer is made to the effect that the impugned complaint being C.R. No. I-50 of 2015 lodged before the Unjha Police Station dated 17.04.2015 be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief background of the case as stated by the petitioner, who is the original accused No. 2, is that the present petitioner was serving as a principal with the Tundav Pay Center School at village Tundav till September, 2014, and during the said period, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint lodged before the Unjha Police Station that the petitioner has misused the cheque and withdrawn an amount of Rs. 49,700/- from the State Bank of India, Unjha Branch in the month of April, 2014. The detailed assertion and allegations are levelled in the FIR which is annexed at Annexure-A. It has been alleged in the complaint that initially the petitioner was serving as a principal with the Tundav Pay Center School, however, then he resigned from his services on 23.09.2014. Thereafter, after the petitioner resigned from his services, the present respondent No. 2-original complainant accepted the charge of the post of principal on 20.10.2014 and started performing her duties as a principal. It is submitted that two cheque books were handed over to her till the use of Cheque No. 471285, however, the allegation of misusing Cheque No. 471329 by the petitioner is not believable as after using more than 40 cheques, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. Further, the charge of the principal was handed over to the complainant in the presence of the Taluka Education Officer, ans. as such, the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present offence and, hence, for seeking quashment of the complaint, the present petition is brought before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by raising multiple contentions. 3. On 22.06.2015, notice came to be issued by the previous Bench and an interim protection was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, after the matter being adjourned from time to time and the pleadings having been completed, it has come up for consideration before this Court, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned advocate Mr. Thereafter, after the matter being adjourned from time to time and the pleadings having been completed, it has come up for consideration before this Court, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned advocate Mr. Paresh Patel, who has received instructions to appear on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, frivolous and concocted one, and thereby an attempt is made to implicate the petitioner in a false prosecution since he has resigned from the services. Mr. Patel has further submitted that the charge has been handed over to the complainant with a clear endorsement and in the presence of the Taluka Education Officer. He has further submitted that, at the relevant point of time, without raising any grievance, the charge had been taken over by the complainant, and after a period of almost seven months, only with a view to save her skin, the liability of her own misappropriation is tried to be shifted upon the present petitioner by implicating him in a false prosecution, which circumstance, deserves consideration. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has also submitted that the petitioner has not used the cheque in question for withdrawal purpose in any manner. On the contrary, the cheques have not been signed by the petitioner and nothing incriminating is found against the petitioner with respect to the allegations levelled in the complaint. On the contrary, in all, 43 cheques have already been used by the complainant prior to the use of cheque in question. It is only on account of the grudge against the petitioner that the false and frivolous complaint came to be filed. The petitioner handed over two cheque books in good faith to the complainant since she being the successor, and this good faith has been tried to be misused by implicating the petitioner in a false and frivolous case of such a serious nature. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that the petitioner is neither the signatory nor the person who withdrew the money, and to the best of information, the C.C.T.V. camera in the Bank would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not present in the Bank. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that the petitioner is neither the signatory nor the person who withdrew the money, and to the best of information, the C.C.T.V. camera in the Bank would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not present in the Bank. In fact, the said amount was withdrawn by one Haribhai and not by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present offence. It has further been contended that specific letters were written on 26.09.2014 as well as on 20.10.2014 which would clearly establish that in true and good faith, the charge of the post of principal has been handed over to the complainant way back in September, 2014 and after a period of seven months, to shift the liability of misappropriation, a false and frivolous complaint came to be filed. This, according to the learned advocate, is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law which entitle the petitioner to seek the relief as prayed for in the present petition. The learned advocate has further submitted that two cheque books were handed over to the complainant till the use of Cheque No. 471285. However, the cheque in question bearing No. 471329 being used by the petitioner for the purpose of withdrawal is unbelievable. Hence, a clear attempt is made by the complainant to arraign the petitioner in the false prosecution. Hence, the relief, as prayed for, be granted in the interest of justice. No further submissions have been made. 6. In response to this, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the stand taken by the petitioner and drawn the attention of the Court to the report which has been submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector, Unjha Police Station to the learned Magistrate dated 10.06.2015 at Annexure-E collectively on Page-22. The details which are stated in this report would clearly indicate that the allegations levelled in the complaint are required to be examined at length, and on the basis of unilateral version of the petitioner, the complaint does not deserve to be quashed, and as such, has vehemently opposed the stand taken by the petitioner. The details which are stated in this report would clearly indicate that the allegations levelled in the complaint are required to be examined at length, and on the basis of unilateral version of the petitioner, the complaint does not deserve to be quashed, and as such, has vehemently opposed the stand taken by the petitioner. In addition to this, in chorus, the respondent No. 2-original complainant has also filed an affidavit reflecting on page-39, in which also, she reiterated the stand which has been reflecting in the complaint which is sought to be quashed and has submitted through her advocate that the complaint has been filed after proper scrutiny of the record and after examining the material, and as such, it cannot be said that false and frivolous complaint is lodged. In fact, by referring to Paras-4,5 and 6, it has been contended that this is not a fit case, in which, the Hon’ble Court may exercise extraordinary inherent jurisdiction, more particularly, when the allegations are required to be adjudicated upon at great length. Hence, requested to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the contents of the complaint, it may be that the petitioner might not have been the signatory to the said cheque which is still to be examined, but at the same time, the report which has been submitted as indicated above dated 10.06.2015 is revealing certain startling facts, and if these facts are to be seen, it would clearly appear that this is not a fit case, in which, inherent jurisdiction deserves to be exercised, more particularly, when the facts are required to be adjudicated upon in detail and the stand taken by the petitioner is seriously in dispute. It was clearly indicated in the report that call details have also been collected by the Investigating Agency and prima facie opinion has also been found which was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, and as such, these are the serious allegations, which in the considered opinion of this Court, requires proper adjudication and the complaint cannot be at the threshold be throttled without being further adjudicated in accordance with law. The contentions which have been raised by the petitioner are practically the defense which have been projected which he might take in the criminal prosecution and such defense to be examined is outside the purview of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and as such, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case in which any interference is required. 8. At this stage, this Court would like to indicate that it is trite law that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised in ‘rarest of rare cases’ and not in a casual or routine manner. Prima facie, if the Court found from the material placed on record that there is any wrongful arraignment or clear abuse of the process of law, then in that case alone, such kind of powers may be exercised but in exceptional cases, and the record of the present case indicates that no exceptional circumstances are visible which may persuade the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard, I may quote the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Google India Private Limited vs. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162 , which read thus: “42. The contours of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is no longer res integra. We would think that it is sufficient if we only advert to the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335. This Court held as follows: “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 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. (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. 103. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 43. As to what is the scope of the expression “rarest of rare cases” indicated in paragraph 103, we may only refer to the judgment of this Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2010) 6 SCC 243 wherein the law laid down by a Bench of three Judges in Som Mittal vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753 has been referred to: “23. The purport of the expression “rarest of rare cases” to which reference was made by Shri Venugopal, has been explained recently in Som Mittal vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 574 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 910 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 1. Speaking for a Bench of three Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice said: (SCC pp. 580-581, Para 9) “9. When the words ‘rarest of rare cases’ are used after the words ‘sparingly and with circumspection’ while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words ‘sparingly and with circumspection’. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression ‘rarest of rare cases’ is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, which are prevailing on record and keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is of the clear opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner to call for any interference. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated.