1. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 30.01.2017 and the proceeding in BI(EO) Case No. 6/2017 under section 120B/120/468 IPC.

2. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das, assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Chamaria for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam as well as learned counsel Mr. H. Rahman for the respondents were heard.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das submitted that the respondent, proprietor of M/s Steel & Grip, Chabua, availed a cash credit limit (CCL) loan to the tune of Rs. 5.7 lakhs and term loan of Rs. 11.90 lakhs from the United Bank of India, Chabua Branch. Subsequently, the said CCL loan was enhanced from time to time. However, the respondent No. 2 became a defaulter for not making timely repayment of installments against the loan availed by him, and as such the bank filed an O.A. case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, which was registered as O.A. No. 74/2012. In the said case, the respondent No. 2 also raised counter claim and the DRT, by judgment and order dated 14.07.2016 allowed the O.A. preferred by the bank and dismissed the counter claim of the respondent No. 2. Against the judgment of the DRT, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, which was also dismissed and having failed in the civil litigation, the instant FIR was lodged with the ulterior motive to obstruct the bank from realizing the money as per the judgment of the DRT as well as the Appellate Tribunal. It was also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, were more or less pertaining to deficiency of service and all those allegations were made before the DRT and the learned Tribunal rejected the same. Having failed to succeed in the civil litigation, the present FIR was filed, with malafide intention only to harass the bank employees and to obstruct execution of the order passed by the DRT. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel further submits, that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence and the allegations made in the FIR, at best could make out a case of deficiency of service, which does not attract criminal liability and as such, prayed for quashing the FIR as well as the proceeding arising therefrom, placing reliance on the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the Investigating Agency should be given opportunity to investigate the matter, in as much as, this court cannot enter into an enquiry to ascertain the correctness or veracity of the allegations made in the FIR.

5. The scope of interference by High Court in the matter of quashing a complaint or an FIR at the threshold, in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions laid down the principle and guidelines for quashing a complaint or FIR in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. In R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, the Apex Court summarized the following three categories of cases where the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can and should be exercised to quash the proceeding:

(i) When it manifestly appears that there is legal and statutory bar against institution and continuance of the proceeding;

(ii) When the allegation made in the FIR or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute any offence alleged and

(iii) When the allegation constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charges.

6. The Apex Court in Bhajanlal (supra) summarized the following categories of cases where the inherent power can and should be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.

“(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they