ORDER The petitioner, by this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to quash the registration of an F.I.R. No. 20 of 1986 at Police Station Dharampur. The investigation being carried out pertains to Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, by this petition has a grievance against the Police for his inclusion in the investigation of this case as an accused. 2. The petitioner alleges that he remained President of Gram Panchayat Sharyana between 1970-1985. In 1985 elections he was defeated. He filed an Election petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the election of the opponent was set aside and the matter is stated to be pending in this Court under the Writ jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner further asserts that during his tenure as President of the Panchayat, number of works were undertaken and completed. It was due to the successful tenure of the petitioner that the opponents felt envious of the same, so, they were on the look out for an excuse to defame the petitioner. The registration of the present case is the outcome of this rivalry and it is alleged that the petitioner abused his power as President of the Panchayat and tried to defraud the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Corporation and the Bank by getting loans in the names of fictitious persons as well as by helping some unscrupulous persons by either forging their signatures or certifying them eligible for the loans in question. It is further alleged that there are many applicants who have been impersonated or. claims has been approved in relation to some such persons who are dead long back. 4. These allegations, the petitioner contends, are thoroughly baseless. He had rightly and correctly attested the facts relating to these applicants. Moreover, he was not the person who was to approve the applications and make payments. The actual job was, in fact, assigned to a committee consisting of various officers of the department as well as the Bank. 5. Sh. Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, urges that the registration of the first information report deserves to be quashed as continuance of investigation would not only amount to harassment of his client but also a flagrant misuse of statutory powers by the Police. 6. I have gone through the voluminous record of this case. 5. Sh. Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, urges that the registration of the first information report deserves to be quashed as continuance of investigation would not only amount to harassment of his client but also a flagrant misuse of statutory powers by the Police. 6. I have gone through the voluminous record of this case. After the registration of this case, the Police has investigated this case to a great extent. The petitioner is not the only accused in the case. There are many others who have processed these applications at different stages. They have also been included as accused. It is not in the interest of the petitioner to extract the evidence against him as, I apprehend, that may not prejudice his defence in the case. However, it cannot be said that there is no case at all against the petitioner. The petitioner has attested many of the disputed applications in issue as President of the Gram Panchayat. Now only investigation can reveal the degree of role and the exact culpability of the petitioner in the matter. 7. The police have a statutory right to investigate a cognizable case. Anyone who approaches this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenges the registration and investigation of a case against him by the Police has to demonstrate conclusively that no offence was made out but the Police was doing so arbitrarily or with mala fide motive. It is in those cases that the High Court can step in to quash such an investigation to avoid harassment of a Citizen. It is pertinent to quote the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in E.S. Mills v. Rajiv Poddar AIR 1985 SC 1668 : (1985 Cri LJ 1858) as under (Para 4) :- "We consider it absolutely unnecessary to make reference to the decisions of this Court and they are legion which have laid down that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. And frankly such is not the case." 8. And frankly such is not the case." 8. Upon the examination of this case in the light of the principles relating to the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court in relation to such cases, I do not think it to be a fit case for the grant of any relief to the petitioner at this stage. 9. The result is, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.