The judgment establishes that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court's duty is limited to determining if the alleged offence is made out with a view to proceed further, and that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases.

JUDGMENT :

J.P. Das, J. - This revision has been filed seeking indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code in short) to quash the order of cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) dated 02.10.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 510 of 2010 arising out of Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010 and directing to Issue process against the present petitioner.

2. The prosecution was initiated on a written report submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar by one Mr. Allen, a Danish citizen alleging that Swami Shankararranda Giri, the present petitioner, was visiting his country since 1991 and was teaching 'Kriya Yoga' techniques. In a meeting, the petitioner convinced the informant that if he invests his money in India it would be doubled in two years and being induced, the informant invested an amount of rupees two crores. The said payment was made through bank transaction and also by hand during the visit of the informant to India. When the informant visited India in 2010, he did not find the petitioner in his Ashram and was also unable to contact him over phone. The informant got information that since some criminal cases were pending against the petitioner he had left the ashram to avoid police arrest. Thus he alleged that he has been cheated by the accused-petitioner.

3. Treating the report as FIR, Saheed Nagar PS. Case No. 63 of 2010 under Section 420 IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up. In course of investigation witnesses were examined, some documents were seized and on 02.08.2014 a preliminary charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC keeping the investigation open for further collection of materials. Pursuant thereto the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar by the impugned order took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner who was on police bail.

4. The said order of the learned SDJM has been assailed in the present revision on different grounds with the submission that the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the alleged offence mechanically without application of judicial mind and hence, it is liable to be quashed.

5. The informant entered appearance in the case and was heard through his counsel.

6. The main thrust of argument that was advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that there is absolutely no material on record to make out an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It was submitted that the basic necessity for making out an offence under Section 420 IPC is 'inducement' with deceitful intention of the accused, which is manifestly absent in the present case. Without disputing that there was some financial transaction between the parties, it was submitted that the informant had voluntarily donated the amounts to the 'Kriya yoga' trust for development of its establishments and since he asked for the return of the amounts later, some part of it was returned and an agreement was entered into between the parties for refund of the balance amount. Thus it was submitted that in the worst, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and it can never be said as cheating by any stretch of imagination so as to make out an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. In this context the learned senior counsel placed before the Court the statement of the informant recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code and submitted that the informant nowhere has alleged that he was induced to invest money so as to be doubled within two years as alleged in the FIR. Rather he has admitted in his statement in clear terms that he gave some loan to the petitioner and gave some amount to the Trust for improvement of its school and construction of ashram. He has also admitted that he has got refund of some amounts. He has also