The Court may quash criminal proceedings under inherent powers if they constitute an abuse of process, but cannot assess evidence prematurely.

1. In this revisional application the four petitioners pray for quashing the proceeding of Case No. C - 2536 of 1977, now pending against them in the 6th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under S.120B and S.420 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The case has been instituted on a complaint filed by the opposite party, Radha Krishna Agarwalla, Managing Director of M/s. Calicut Engineering Works (P) Ltd., of 26A, Camac Street, Calcutta. The material allegations on which the complaint is based are as follows: -
The petitioner No. 1 is the Manager of the Machinery Division of Batliboi and Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) having its Branch Office at 26. R. N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Principal Officers of the Company and are attached to its Head Office at Bombay. The complainant was on the lookout of one Gear Robbing Machine which was to be installed at the complainant's factory at 1/2B, Khagendra Chatterjee Road, Calcutta - 2 for a better output in manufacture of Gear. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 sent, on behalf of the Company, the petitioner No. 1, to the complainant's office in or about the middle of January, 1977 and he represented that having come to learn that the company of the complainant was on the lookout of one imported Gear Hobbing Machine, he had been sent by the other three petitioners to negotiate for sale of one of such machine. He further stated that as the Manager of the Machine Tools Division he was instructed by the other petitioners to negotiate the sale. The petitioner No. 1 further stated that the Company represented Stroj - import Foreign Trade Co. Ltd., Czechslovakia (hereinafter referred to as the foreign Company) and was permitted by State Trading Corporation to import and sell the said machine in India and if the complainant was interested to purchase such machine the petitioners would be able to supply a brand new latest model which was known as Model OF - 16 Gear Hobbing Machine. The petitioner No. 1 further represented that he would be able to make delivery of the said machine from the incoming consignment which had already been shipped to Bombay Port. The petitioner No. 1 handed over a printed leaflet showing the data and illustration of OF - 16 Gear Hobbing Machine. As the complainant was hesitating to finalise the transaction, the price of the machine being over 8 lakhs of rupees, the petitioner No. 1 represented that the new model OF - 16 was much more economic and productive and was used for precision jobs and that Mr. A. Golasik and Mr. F. Kulisik of the Foreign Company who were coming to India shortly would be in a position to explain the working and technicalities of the said machine to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. As per the said arrangement the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 sent the petitioner No. 1, Mr. A. Golasik and Mr. F. Kulisik to the complainant's place of business on or about Feb. 18, 1977 and all of them represented and assured that a new machine of OF - 16 Model would be supplied and if payment was made before delivery there would be certain concessions in the price. The complainant being thus induced by the aforesaid representation, which ultimately proved to be false, placed an order for supply of one new machine of OF - 16 Model for Gear Hobbing and advanced a total sum of Rs. 8,24,474.67 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty - four thousand four hundred seventy - four and paise sixty - seven only) in full and final payment of the said machine on three different dates namely, 2-3-77, 29-3-77 and 30-3-