JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in CC No.620 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City for the offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). 2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows : (a) Accused No.1 being the Managing Director and Director of M/s. Baby Food Products Private Limited, Visakhapatnam obtained loan of Rs.3.85 crores from the respondent No.1-Bank, for the construction of cold storage for agricultural purpose, by mortgaging the land of an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.20-18 of Mushidipalli Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District and 2,500 Square yards of vacant land situated in Sy.No.111/1 of Madhurawda Village, GVMC Limits and accused No.3 stood as guarantor for the said loan. The Bank has released an amount of Rs.2,59,84,162/- and the same has to be paid in 84 EMIs @ Rs.3,95,000/- per month. (b) Subsequently, the Firm has constructed the cold storage in the land which is not mortgaged to the Bank and actually semi completed cold storage is erected in Sy.Nos.78/17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 instead of the land mortgaged to the Bank. Further, the vacant site in Sy.No.111/1 admeasuring 2,500 Sq. yards was under strong legal claim from M/s. Suryaveni Constructions Private Limited. As the borrower deliberately mortgaged the disputed property and also constructed cold storage in a different survey number, respondent No.1-Bank lodged a complaint against all the accused, which was registered as a case in Crime No.366 of 2012 on the file of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B read with 34 IPC, which was numbered as CC No.620 of 2019. (c) Aggrieved thereby, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.1. 4. (c) Aggrieved thereby, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while admitting the availment of loan by the petitioners, would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not make out a case against the petitioners for the alleged offence. Learned Counsel would submit that, even according to the Prosecution, more than 35 installments out of 84 installments were paid by the petitioners and subsequently, the loan was cleared as One Time Settlement by selling away the vacant site of 2,500 Square yards and the said loan account was also closed. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners never committed any offence, as alleged by respondent No.1-Bank and hence, prayed for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners which would attract the offence alleged against them. At this stage, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for determination : 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.620 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City ? Determination by the Court : 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Trial Court, Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Trial Court, Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out 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. (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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In the case on hand, it is alleged that, petitioner/accused No.1, who is the Managing Director and accused No.2, who is the Director of M/s. Baby Food Products Private Limited, Visakhapatnam obtained loan of Rs.2,59,84,162/- from the respondent No.1-Bank, for the construction of cold storage, by mortgaging the land of an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.20-18 of Mushidipalli Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District and 2,500 Square yards of vacant land situated in Sy.No.111/1 of Madhurawda Village, GVMC Limits and accused No.3 stood as guarantor for the said loan. The said loan has to be repaid in 84 EMIs @ Rs.3,95,000/- per month. Stating that the borrower deliberately mortgaged the disputed property and also constructed cold storage in the land which was under strong legal claim from M/s. Suryaveni Constructions Private Limited, the crime was registered. 10. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they had no intention to cheat the Bank at any point of time. The allegation that the collateral security appears to be a fake one, is not tenable since there is a Sale Deed in favour of the Company and no legal proceedings or any other dispute was raised by anybody with regard to the said property. There are no ingredients to attract the alleged offence against the petitioners. 11. Admittedly, it is not the case of respondent No.1-Bank that the borrower obtained the loan by depositing forged and fabricated documents, as a security and thereafter committed default in payment of the loan and thereby cheated the Bank. It is the contention of the petitioners that, subsequent to the lodging of the present complaint, the entire loan amount was cleared under "One Time Settlement" scheme. A bare perusal of the letter addressed by petitioner/accused No.3 to respondent No.1-Bank, dated 29.06.2019 would clearly show that they have cleared the loan amount under the said scheme and the same was acknowledged by the Bank, vide letter dated 16.08.2019 addressed to accused Nos.1 to 3 and the Bank also issued No Due Certificate to them. 12. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Sections 415 and 420 IPC which read as follows : "415. 12. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Sections 415 and 420 IPC which read as follows : "415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 13. Perusal of the above sections would reveal that, 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. In the present case, the material available on record would show that there was no intention of the petitioners from the inception to cheat respondent-Bank. Since the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 have discharged the entire loan amount and nothing is due to respondent-Bank, criminal liability cannot be attributed to them. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 3 and as such, the same are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 in CC No.620 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City for the offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B read with 34 IPC. 15. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 in CC No.620 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City for the offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B read with 34 IPC. 15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.