ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.,[for short ‘IPC’] 2. The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows : a. Accused is running Sri Amrutha Food Products at Auto Nagar E Block, Visakhapatnam. He is authorized to utilize the brand name of Chintoos Food. On 17.09.2018, the Complainant/Food Safety Officer along with RV & EO staff conducted search at Sri Amrutha Food Products at Auto Nagar E Block, on suspicion lifted four food samples and sent them to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. b. Vide the Analysis Report, Proprietor is having FSSA License bearing No.10116028000633 but he has been using the printed covers with FSSA No.13616015000224 and details of Chintoos food 90k ida katteadem Hyderabad 50077 in which he is filling the savories manufactured and selling them to the public for human consumption. c. As such, he lodged a complaint before the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.339 of 2018 for the offence under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioner/Accused which was numbered as C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the said offence. Grounds Sought for Quashment 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds : a. Admittedly in this case, if really the complainant Food Safety Officer took the sample and sent for the Analysis, they must receive a report as well as they ought to have examined him, but no such Analyst’s name in the list of witnesses is mentioned, hence they have not followed the procedure nor sent any samples officially certified about the offence, hence the case is bad in law. b. The main case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner used the label of Chintoos Foods at Hyderabad, hence Chintoos Foods must be a victim, but, no complaint has been given by Chintoos Foods. b. The main case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner used the label of Chintoos Foods at Hyderabad, hence Chintoos Foods must be a victim, but, no complaint has been given by Chintoos Foods. Admittedly, Chintoos Foods has given authorization to the Petitioner/Accused to use their label and brand as per the certificate issued hence admittedly there is no offence as alleged in the charge sheet. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup for the Petitioners, and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that L.W.5- Chintoos Foods has given authorization to the Petitioner to use their label and brand from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2018, as such, the offence under Section 420 IPC has not been committed by the Petitioner, as alleged. It is submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet do not attract the said offence, therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain v. The State of Karnataka & Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468 and the High Court of Bombay in Anant & Others v. State of Maharashtra & another, [Criminal Application No.1471 of 2013, dated 24.09.2018]. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence. The matter has to be decided during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. 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 Petitioner in Crime No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. 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. 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. 9. 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. (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.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. In the instant case, the main allegation leveled against the Petitioner/Accused is that, he has been using the label Chintoos Food and has been selling different food items in the brand name of ‘Chintoos’ and thereby committed the offence under Section 420 IPC. 11. 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. 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.” 12. 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. Initially the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 417, 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and after investigation, the Section of law was altered to Section 420 IPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused that L.W.5 – Chintoos Foods, Hyderabad had given authorization to utilize their brand name, as such, the Petitioner/Accused has not committed the alleged offence. 13. A bare perusal of the record would show that, as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Chintoos Foods, Hyderabad had given authorization to the Petitioner for utilizing their brand name on the wrapper and the said authorization was from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2018, whereas, the samples were alleged to have been seized on 17.09.2018, which is well within the said period of authorization. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner/Accused has been using the label and brand name without the consent of Chintoos Foods. Even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing. Further, the charge sheet is bereft of any details as to the report of the Analyst regarding the substandard, if any, in maintaining the quality of the food products by the Petitioner. Even if the allegations made in the charge sheet 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 Petitioner/Accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner and as such, the same are liable to be quashed 14. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner and as such, the same are liable to be quashed 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.