Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.N.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arises from the First Information Report dated 1.9.2017 in Case Crime No. 949 of 2017, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar (instituted in pursuance of the order passed on application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.), being Criminal Case No. 4811/9 of 2017 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar), pending in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar.

2. According to the F.I.R. version, the opposite party No. 2 had a pre-existing social relationship with the applicant, who was engaged in trading in ‘Gur’ in the name and style M/s Om Prakash & Ajay Kumar, at Kukda Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar. Further, the applicant approached the opposite party No. 2 in March, 1996 to borrow Rs. 2,00,000/- with a promise to return such money within a period of one month, failing which he agreed to pay interest @ 18%, compounded at monthly rests. The opposite party No. 2 also disclosed having believed and acted on the representation so made by the applicant. He thus lent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- through two cheque drawn on the bank account of his wife, for Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Those were cleared and the amount credited in favour of the applicant on 15.3.1996. Thereafter, it has been alleged, the opposite party No. 2 repeatedly asked for return of the aforesaid money. It was never returned; the applicant thereafter left Muzaffar Nagar and started residing at Ghaziabad which address was not known to the opposite party; upon some efforts, the opposite party No. 2 learnt of the mobile number used by the applicant; he contacted the applicant on that number when the latter promised to return the money to the opposite party No. 2 but that he continued to dilly-dally, on one pretext or the other. Though the money was never returned by the applicant, on the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. It was also disclosed in that F.I.R. that the applicant had refused to return the money and in fact he issued a notice to the opposite party No. 2 making false allegation therein.

3. While a counter version of the events has been offered in the affidavit in support of the application, however, the same is not required to be gone into at present, these being proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 (paragraph 101) has to be applied.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR and consequently the charge-sheet submitted would fail the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 101 (1) 101(3) of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) that reads as below:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) 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 entiret