ORDER: V. Sujatha, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.50 of 2020, dated 06.03.2020 of Sullurupet Police Station, Nellore District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC . 2. The petitioner herein as A2 and respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, who were running Team Educational Solutions, induced the defacto complainant to believe that they would arrange Medical seat for her daughter at Raja Rajeswari Medical College, Bangalore, if she arranged Rs.50,00,000/-. Trusting the words of the accused, the defacto complainant deposited Rs.50,00,000/- into the account of A1 and also in other accounts as instructed by A1. However, A1 did not arrange medical seat for the complainant?s daughter. When the complainant and her husband approached the accused and demanded the return of the money, they claimed that the money had already been spent and refused to refund it. Thus, the accused misappropriated the Rs.50,00,000/- given by the defacto complainant and cheated her by failing to provide the medical seat for her daughter as promised by them. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.50 of 2020 has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC on the file of Sullurupet Police station. The present petitioner is filed to quash the said crime No.50 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A2 is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further argued that, in order to gain wrongful advantage, the 2 nd respondent has lodged the present complaint. With regard to the allegations against the petitioner, there is no specific averment that attracts offences under Sections 406 , 420 r/w 34 of IPC , except the allegation that when the 2 nd respondent approached the petitioner/A2, he refused to repay the money received from the defacto complainant. The police, without verifying the incident or the involvement of petitioner/A2, falsely implicated him in this crime solely to harass him. Therefore, petitioner/A2 prays for the petition to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the facts. The police, without verifying the incident or the involvement of petitioner/A2, falsely implicated him in this crime solely to harass him. Therefore, petitioner/A2 prays for the petition to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the facts. The petitioner/A2 and A1 collected Rs.50,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, which they misappropriated for their own use by committing criminal breach of trust. However, neither petitioner/A2 nor A1 provided the medical seat to complainant?s daughter, nor returned the money taken from the complainant. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.50 of 2020 of Sullurpeta Police Station, Nellore District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C .?” 7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SC 866 ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “ Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar , [ AIR 1990 SC 494 ] ” 10. In “ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 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 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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC . Section 406 I.P.C. reads as under: “Punishment for criminal breach of trust.— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 420 I.P.C. reads as under: “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. From a perusal of the FIR, it can be observed that, all the allegations are leveled against accused No.1 only. Even as per the allegations, the defacto complainant approached accused No.1, who was running the entity „Team Educational Solutions?, and deposited amounts into the account of accused No.1 and other accounts as directed by accused No.1. Nowhere it was alleged that amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner herein/accused No.2 also. Even as per the allegations, the defacto complainant approached accused No.1, who was running the entity „Team Educational Solutions?, and deposited amounts into the account of accused No.1 and other accounts as directed by accused No.1. Nowhere it was alleged that amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner herein/accused No.2 also. There is also no allegation or any material available on record to indicate that the petitioner/accused No.2 was involved in the affairs of the said entity being run by accused No.1. The only allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that when the defacto complainant asked to return the money, accused Nos.1 and 2 refused to return the same. In the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioner/accused No.2 is also involved in the affairs of the entity run by accused No.1 or that the amounts were deposited into his account also, this Court is of the view that the continuation of proceedings against petitioner/A2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. According to guideline No.1 of guidelines formulated in “ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ” (referred supra), if the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in FIR No.50 of 2020 of Sullurpeta Police Station, Nellore District dated 06.03.2020 against the petitioner/accused No2. However, the police are directed to proceed as against A1 in Cr.No.50 of 2020 of Sullurupet Police Station, Nellore District and file charge sheet as against A1, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.