Hon’ble Vipin Sinha, J.—Heard Sri. Dinesh Kakkar learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and learned AGA appearing for the State.

By means of the aforecaptioned applications under Section 482, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 93/2008 dated 8.10.2008 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC submitted in case crime No. 176 of 2008 and also for quashing of the further proceeding in criminal case No. 4838 of 2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar.

2. Both the aforecaptioned applications under Section 482 were connected together vide order of this Court dated 18.12.2009 and as such both the matters are being heard and decided together by a common order. For the facts, Cri. Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 26680 of 2008 is being treated as a leading case.

3. The brief facts are as follows:

Opposite party No. 2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.2.2008 seeking a direction for registration of a First Information Report. The said application was filed with the allegation that opposite party No. 2 was a reputed businessman of Kanpur and he was known to the family of the applicants. The applicants approached the opposite party No. 2 seeking investment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the assurance that he will be made a Director in the Company in lieu of the said investment. The opposite party No. 2 was also assured that along with the post of Director he would also receive an interest between 12% to 14% of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Opposite party No. 2 had agreed to the offer and paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide two Bank Drafts. The applicants had made part of the payment towards interest of the amount for certain period but subsequent payment was stopped and opposite party No. 2 was not made Director in the Company upon which the opposite party No. 2 has made a demand for reimbursement of the entire amount. On 8.4.2004 an amount of Rs. 5,32,646/- was paid to him as part payment. By a written notice dated 19.2.2007, this amount was demanded but no payment was made, accordingly, opposite party No. 2 had been cheated with mala fide intention. On 20.4.2007, a report was registered at P.S. Pheelkhana, Kanpur Nagar, however, no action was taken. A complaint was filed on 14.2.2008. On the said complaint, the concerned Magistrate directed the police to submit its report. The concerned police station submitted its report which clearly states that no cognizable offence has been made out and there is a business dispute between the parties which appears to be civil in nature. After receiving the said report from the concerned police station, the Magistrate concerned directed for registration of FIR and after registration of the FIR, the statements of Anupam Dalmia, Ashok Dalmia, Shantimal Singhvi and K.K. Srivastava were recorded. After recording the statements of the aforesaid persons, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 406 and 420 IPC upon which the Magistrate has taken cognizance on 24.1.2009 against which the aforecaptioned applications have been filed.

4. Before I deal with the respective contentions advanced by either sides, I deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been discussed in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 7 SCC 215, which is as under:

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the