Judgment

Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant lodged an FIR with the police for the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on the premise that the complaint did not disclose the offence. The Division Bench reminded themselves that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection” for quashing criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, learned judges found that the case on hand could not pass the test laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 . The appel­lant is obviously aggrieved by the aforesaid course of action adopted by the High Court and hence he filed the special leave petition.

3. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the police, on the strength of which the FIR was prepared, the following averments, inter alia, were made. Appellant belongs to a company (M/s. Passion Apparel Private Limited) which manufactures and export Readymade garments. On 15.11.1994 fifth respondent (Gagan Kishore Srivastava) Managing Direc­tor of M/s. Avren Junge Mode Gumbh Haus Der Model approached the complainan