JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No.2/complainant on call despite the name of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 being reflected in the Cause list. 2. This application is filed under Section 482, read with Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Moranhat P.S. Case No. 128/2014 dated 06.10.2014 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) pending before the Officer-in-charge of Moranhat Police Station, Sivasagar. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed an FIR on 30.09.2014 before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging inter alia that the petitioner No.1 has outstanding dues amounting several crores of rupees to the respondents in respect of works executed by them pertaining to Drilling Rigs 29, 30, 31 and 50 of the Oil and Natural Gas Company (hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”) under the Principal contractor i.e. petitioner No.1. It is further alleged that for the purpose of clearing such dues, a Memorandum of Understating (hereinafter referred to as “MOU”) was entered between petitioner No.1 represented by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the private respondents on 06.03.2014 and 07.03.2014 respectively. However, the petitioners failed to clear the outstanding dues despite repeated requests made by the private respondents from time to time. It is further alleged that accordingly, the said FIR was registered under Section 420/406/34 of IPC. Situated thus, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the said FIR. 4. Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in-fact, prior to filing the instant FIR, the private respondents forcibly entered in the premises of the petitioner No.1 and removed the valuable equipments of Rig 50 owned by the petitioner No.1, forcibly with their muscle and money power, for which a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No.1 on 29.09.2014 against such action of the private respondents. He further submits that as a counterblast and to harass the petitioner, the instant FIR has been lodged by the private respondents. He further submits that as a counterblast and to harass the petitioner, the instant FIR has been lodged by the private respondents. He further submits that even assuming the allegation made out in the FIR to be correct, no criminal case whatsoever, is made out against the petitioners. He further submits that at best it is purely a civil dispute. He therefore submits that continuance of further criminal proceeding is wholly unjustified. 5. Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question. He submits that investigation is yet to start and therefore, this Court ought not to quash the instant FIR. 6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It appears that the petitioner No.1 had been awarded a contract for drilling services in the State of Assam by the ONGC, for which purpose the petitioner No.1 required the services of man management on fixed per day rate/charges and accordingly the petitioner No.1 entered into four contracts with different parties for availing the services i.e. “Man Management And Relevant Services” for operation and maintenance of Drilling Rig at Sibsagar in terms of the said contract awarded by the ONGC and the four parties with whom the petitioner No.1 entered into the said contracts are: (a) M/s Global Oil Field Services Ltd. on 25.07.2009 (b) M/s S.K. Petro Services Pvt. Ltd. on 25.10.2009 (c) M/s Rongpur Construction & Trade on 01.05.2010 and (d) M/s Excel Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd. on 25.08.2009. It further appears that in the said four contracts, arbitration clause for resolving dispute between the parties are provided. It appears that though the petitioner No.1 was initially performing its obligation under the terms and obligation stipulated in the four contracts in question, however, in the last phase of work, dispute arose between the parties as regards the dues owed by the petitioner No.1. In respect of the said dispute, an understanding was reached between the petitioner No.1 and the four companies as regards the payment obligation of petitioner No.1, in respect of the outstanding dues. It appears that accordingly, a MOU was entered between them. It appears that in the MOU the petitioner No.1 was represented by petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. In respect of the said dispute, an understanding was reached between the petitioner No.1 and the four companies as regards the payment obligation of petitioner No.1, in respect of the outstanding dues. It appears that accordingly, a MOU was entered between them. It appears that in the MOU the petitioner No.1 was represented by petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. It appears that despite the aforesaid understanding petitioner No.1 could not pay the said amount due to severe financial crisis on account of the embargo imposed by the Service Tax Department. 8. It appears that the Service Tax Department has directed the clients of the petitioner No.1 not to release any payment to the petitioner No.1 for which the petitioner No.1 is in financial crisis. It appears that the petitioner No.1 by letter dated 13.08.2014 intimated the said four companies as regards the same. It was further informed in the said letter that the petitioner No.1 would be in a position to clear its dues after 6(six) months or so from the date the Service Tax Department lifts the said embargo. It further appears that the petitioner No.1 proposed to clear the outstanding dues by way of monthly installment over a period commencing from August, 2014 till March, 2016. 9. It appears that however, the private respondent forcefully and illegally entered the godown of the petitioner No.1 and unlawfully took away the valuable equipment of Rig 50 which belongs to the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 lodged two FIRs being FIR No. 123/2014 dated 29.09.2014 before the Moranhat Police Station and FIR No. 830/2014 dated 29.09.2014 before Sivsagar P.S. 10. Apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the FIR No. 123/2014 dated 29.09.2014: “Date: 29.09.2014 To, The Station House Officer, P.S. Sepon, Sivasagar, Assam Sub: Complaint against Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Mr. Bordiol, Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Mr. Apurvafor Forcible removable/theft of 150 drill pipes and Welding Machine also Criminal Intimidation to our employees. Sir, We, Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd, a Company incorporated in 1989 and providing services of Drilling & Seismic to Oil & Gas Sectors mainly to ONGC and OIL INDIA Ltd. We entered into Contracts with ONGC to provide drilling Rigs. We provided 4 Rigs viz. Rig Nos.29, 30, 31 and 50 in Sivasagar arca under the said Contracts. We provided 4 Rigs viz. Rig Nos.29, 30, 31 and 50 in Sivasagar arca under the said Contracts. During the operations of Contracts, we have taken services from Rangpur Construction & Traders Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Excel Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd Rep by its MDMr. Bordloi, S.K. Petro Services Ltd Rep by its MD Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Global Oilfield Services Pvt Ltd Rep by its MD Mr. Apurva to provide Men and Catering Services. Our operations are completed and Rigs, its equipments and associated items are stocked in yards/godowns in and around Sivasagar area. Rig 50 is located in yard at ONGC Well BMAE (Banmali), Rig 30 is located in yard at ONGC well site GKHD (Geleky) Basc Store, Betabari, Sivasagar and Rig 31 is located in yard at Sounpura. There are some financial issues to be resolved with these Contractors. It is informed that, to our utter shock and surprise that on 26.09.2014, these Contractors with their supporters and henchmen and some unknown persons of seemingly criminal background, brought trailers bearing numbers AS04AC5029, NL04D3867 and AS04AC5039 with one craneto our yard at ONGC Well BMAE (Barmali), where Rig No.50 is stocked. They forcibly loaded 150 drill pipes value of Rs. 1.50 Cr and a Welding machine in trailers and taken away on 27.09.2014. They threatened our Security guards and forced to write some gate slips. They further threatened to take equipments from this yard and other godowns. They used offensive and un parliamentary language. The aforesaid persons threatened that they will disrupt our rig operations at Duliajan by taking away the assets. There is imminent threat and danger of further removal of assets by these contractors and also threat to life to our staff and security guards. We request you to register our Complaint under the appropriate provisions of the IPC and take appropriate action against aforesaid persons according to law and safeguard our assets also our personnel. (E. Sreenivas Rao) S/o Late E.J. Rama Rao (Mobile No. 09810227941) Senior Manager-Legal Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd, Tower-1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Sector-V, Saket, New Delhi-110017” 11. Apt also to reproduce the relevant portion of the FIR No. 830/2014 dated 29.09.2014: “Date:29.09.2014 To, The Officer in charge, Sivasagar P.S. Sivasagar, Assam Sub: Complaint against Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Mr. Bordloi, Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Mr. Apt also to reproduce the relevant portion of the FIR No. 830/2014 dated 29.09.2014: “Date:29.09.2014 To, The Officer in charge, Sivasagar P.S. Sivasagar, Assam Sub: Complaint against Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Mr. Bordloi, Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Mr. Apurva for Forcible removable/theft of Crane also Criminal Intimidation to our employees. Sir, We, Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd, a Company incorporated in 1989 and providing services of Drilling & Seismic to Oil &Gas Sectors mainly to ONGC and OIL INDIA Ltd. We entered into Contracts with ONGC to provide drilling Rigs. We provided 4 Rigs viz. Rig Nos 29, 30, 31 and 50 in Sivasagar area under the said Contracts. During the operations of Contracts, we have taken services from Rangpur Construction & Traders Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Excel Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Bordloi, S.K. Petro Services Ltd Rep by its MD Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Global Oilfield Services Pvt Ltd Rep by its MD Mr. Apurva to provide, Men and Catering Services. Our operations are completed and Rigs, its equipments and associated items are stocked in yards/godowns in and around Sivasagar area. Rig 50 is located in yard at ONGC Well BMAE (Banmali), Rig 30 is located in yard at ONGC well site GKHD (Geleky) Base Store, Betabari, Sivasagar and Rig 31 is located in yard at Sounpura. There are some financial issues to be resolved with these Contractors. That yesterday i.e. on 28.09.2014 at 10 AM, the aforesaid persons came to our yard at Charekapara, where RIG No.31 is stocked and forcibly taken away one 40 Ton Crane No. AS23Ac 6170 value of Rs. 1 Crore. They threatened our Security guards and forced to write in entry register. They further threatened to take equipments from this yard and other godowns. They used offensive and un parliamentary language. Today again they come and taken away 50 ton Crane No.NL 04 D 2423 from Cherekapara yard. The aforesaid persons threatened that they will disrupt our rig operations at Duliajan by taking away the assets. There is imminent threat and danger of further removal of assets by these contractors and also threat to life to our staff and security guards. We request you to register our Complaint under the appropriate provisions of the IPC and take appropriate action against aforesaid persons according to law and safeguard our assets also our personnel. There is imminent threat and danger of further removal of assets by these contractors and also threat to life to our staff and security guards. We request you to register our Complaint under the appropriate provisions of the IPC and take appropriate action against aforesaid persons according to law and safeguard our assets also our personnel. (E. Sreenivas Rao) S/o Late E.J. Rama Rao (Mobile No. 09810227941) Senior Manager-Legal Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd, Tower-1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Sector- V, Saket, New Delhi- 110017” 12. Reading of the aforesaid two F.I.Rs, it is apparent that the petitioner lodged the same alleging inter alia that the private respondents by entering in the yard of petitioner No.1 took away the crane belonging to the petitioner No.1 by threatening the staff present therein. 13. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid two FIRs filed by the petitioner No.1 against the private respondents, the private respondents filed the instant FIR on 06.10.2014 against the petitioners. 14. Apt to reproduce the FIR No. 128/2014 dated 06.10.2014, which is hereunder: “To the officer-in-charge of the Moranhat police station Date-06/10/2014 Complaint U/S 420/211/34 of the IPC It a respectfully submitted, 1. That the complainants have executed works of the Drilling Rigs-29,30, 31 & 50 of the ONGC Assam Asset under the principal contractor SHIV- VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar represented by its Base Manager Sri S.K. Lakhotia for the Sivasagar district 2. That the Rigs-29, 30 & 31 were dehired by ONGC and hence the SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar took out the said Rigs with all accessories from the ONGC premises but as the Rig No.50 Installed at SeponPorasorfl under the Sepon police outpost under the Moranhat police stati(cid:243)n, Sivasagar was functioning, it was not dehired. However, the Rig No.50 got workless since the month of April, 2014 and dehired the Rig. 3. That the, SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar had to clear several Crores of rupees to the complainants and for the purpose of clearing such dues the SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD represented by its CMD Mr. However, the Rig No.50 got workless since the month of April, 2014 and dehired the Rig. 3. That the, SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar had to clear several Crores of rupees to the complainants and for the purpose of clearing such dues the SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD represented by its CMD Mr. Prem Singhee, G.M. Finance-Sri P.P. Saradgi and Sri S.K. Lakhotia the Base Manager of the Sivasagar Project entered into a MOU (Memorandum of Understandings) with the complainants side held at Noida dated 06 and 07 March 2014 and in the said MOU the SHIV VANI undertook to clear the outstanding to the complainants within 30 September, 2014 and vide the MOU the SHIV-VANI very clearly agreed and assured that till the outstanding of all the five parties/ complainants are not cleared the operation of the Rig 50 would be under the sole supervision of the complainants and that till then the Rig 50 shall not be moved by the SHIV-VANI. Copy of the MOU is enclosed herewith as annexure-A. 4. That as agreed upon, the SHIV-VANI did not at all clear the outstanding to the complainants and under constant demands the SHIV-VANI vide the latest letter No. Shiv/MMC/Sivasagar/01 dated 13/8/2014 once again assured the complainants to make slab-wise payments by paying the 1 st payment of Rs.15 lakhs to each of the complainants within 14/8/14 but they again defrauded. Copy of the letter No. Shiv/MMC/Sivasagar/01 is enclosed herewith as annexure-B. 5. That in the meantime ONGC directed the SHIV- VANI to remove the Rig-50 with threat of levying penal charges. Sri S.K. Lakhotia- the Base Manager of the Sivasagar Project of the SHIV-VANI met the complainants with request to remove the Rig-50. The request was made in view of the existing fact that the Rig was under direct control & supervision of the complainants. Relevantly it is stated that as the Rig-50 was dehired and it was under direct control of the complainants with authority thereof (annexure-A), the complainants who have got lien over the subject Rig-50 with its all accessories until their outstanding are not realized. AND as such they promptly agreed to remove the Rig -50 with its all accessories from the ONGC premises. AND as such they promptly agreed to remove the Rig -50 with its all accessories from the ONGC premises. Sri S.K. Lakhotia- the Base Manager of the Sivasagar Project of the SHIV-VANI got Transfer Challans issued to the complainants from the SHIV-VANI Security for the two cranes and 150 nos. of 5 inch drill pipes. There was plan to remove the Rig-50 and all of its remaining accessories accordingly for the safety of all them. The removed items are being safely kept in the safe yard of the complaints near Darikapar under Sivasagar police station. 6. That with malice design to deprive the complainants from securing the Rig-50 and its accessories, some vested persons unauthorisedly lodged a complaint against the complainants before you but the above noted facts on record are crystal clear showing the fact that such Ejahar is false, lodged with malice design to harass the complainants. In view of the above noted existing facts on record, appropriate penal actions may be initiated against such accused persons for Iodging false case and also for defrauding the complainants, also enabling the complainants to remove the Rig-50 and its accessories to their possession, for the ends of justice.” 15. Pertinent that the private respondents have also filed another FIR against the petitioners at Sivasagar P.S., which is registered as Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 833/2014 dated 30.09.2014 under Section 420/406/34 of IPC, against which the petitioners have filed a separate quashing petition being criminal petition No. 943/2014. 16. Apparent from reading of the aforesaid FIR that no allegation as regards fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or fraudulent misappropriation is shown in the FIR. It further appears that there has been breach of the terms and conditions of the MoU in question for which at best a civil action could have been brought against the petitioner. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal proceeding for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. In other words, to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise. Similarly, every breach of trust may not result in criminal breach of trust, unless there is evidence showing fraudulent misappropriation. In other words, to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise. Similarly, every breach of trust may not result in criminal breach of trust, unless there is evidence showing fraudulent misappropriation. Therefore, every breach of trust may not result in criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence showing act of fraudulent misappropriation. The act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong, in which a person who is aggrieved, may seek redressal for damages in civil Court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to criminal prosecution. 17. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 . Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients: In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and (2) The person entrusted: (a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or (b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: (i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or (ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W. Palanitkar). Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab13). 37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. 38. 37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. 38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC. 39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha14 as under: (SCC p. 824, para 4) ‘4. We have heard Mr Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondent had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs 35,000. There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs 35,000 by deceiving him. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondent had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs 35,000. There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs 35,000 by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation was made by the respondents to him at or before the time he paid the money to them and that at the time the representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability for them, but this fact would not be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating.’ 40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case. 41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. 42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. 42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. 43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.” 18. Reading of the aforesaid decision it is apparent that under both the sections 406 and 420 of IPC, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. Therefore, to give rise to criminal prosecution, a breach of trust is to be actuated with mens rea and for cheating there has to be fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. As a necessary corollary to the above, unless such averment/allegations are set out in the F.I.R. no offence whatsoever, under Section 406/420 of IPC respectively is constituted. 19. In the instant case, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients of section 406 and 420 of IPC. In fact, no allegations either of fraudulent or dishonest intention and/or fraudulent misappropriation are discernable from the averments set out in the instant F.I.R. On the contrary, it appears that the private respondents are using the Police Stations and Criminal Courts as a medium to settle personal grudges. In fact, no allegations either of fraudulent or dishonest intention and/or fraudulent misappropriation are discernable from the averments set out in the instant F.I.R. On the contrary, it appears that the private respondents are using the Police Stations and Criminal Courts as a medium to settle personal grudges. It is well settled that 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, and/or 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, this Court is entitled in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. ( Refer:- State of Haryana & Other Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335) 20. In the light of the above, I am of the unhesitant view that the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if the same is taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any criminal offence against the petitioner and that the F.I.R. appears to have been lodged with mala-fide intention. Therefore, the present FIR is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law. Hence, continuation of further proceeding in respect of the said FIR would amount to gross travesty of justice. Hence, the petitioners have made out a case for quashing the F.I.R. in question. 21. As such, the F.I.R registered as Moranhat P.S. case No. 128/2014 dated 06.10.2014 under Section 420/406 of IPC stands set aside and quashed. 22. Resultantly, the criminal petition stands allowed and is disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier accordingly, is hereby made absolute.