Judgment 1. ON 4-3-92 on the basis of a written complaint drawn by the Inspector of Entry Tax Bureau of Investigation, the Officer- in- charge, Polba P. S. recorded a First Information Report in respect of offences punishable under Section 24 (l) (a) (b) of TEGMA Act, 1972 and Sections 468/471/120b 1. P. C. against M/s. Pandey Octroi Service of hossenabad and others. The allegation in, the written complaint on the basis of which the said F.I.R. was drawn being F.I.R. no. 42/92 is that on receipt of a secret information that some persons working under the name and style of m/s. Pandey Octroi Service as Clearing Agent at Hossenabad Entry Tax Road check post evaded payment of entry tax on the entry of specified goods belonging to M/s. Star Iron works Pvt. Ltd. of Sheakespeare Sarani, Calcutta by using forged entry tax money receipt, the Inspector of Entry Tax Bureau of investigation seized the entry tax money receipt in Form- V bearing serial no. AM-645780 dated 23-4-91 for Rs. 7792/- purportedly issued from Hossenabad Entry Tax Road Check post along with carbon copy of the Entry Tax declaration Form- IV dated 23-4-91 from the custody of Mr. C. M. Agarwal (the petitioner no. 3 herein), accountant of M/s. Star Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. on 28-10-91 under section 22 (f) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta metropolitan Area Act (TEGMA Act, for short) and also seized the Bill, consignment Note and Inspection/testing and Rejection Note for the specified goods against which the said forged Form V was used from the custody of Shri dilip Dalmia (the petitioner no. 2 herein) son of Mr. K. P. Dalmia, Managing director of M/s. Star Iron Works on 26-9-91 under the said section. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the office copy of Form V, Book No. 3348 of hossenabad Entry Tax Road Check post containing triplicate copies of Form V nos. AM-645751 to AM-645800 along with relevant documents was forwarded to the office of the Complaint Inspector by the Entry Tax Officer. Hossenabad check post and the triplicate copies of Form V no. AM-645780 was verified from the said Form V Book no. 3348 and it transpired that no deposit of entry tax of Rs.7792/- on account of M/s. Star Iron Works had been made on 23-4-91. Hossenabad check post and the triplicate copies of Form V no. AM-645780 was verified from the said Form V Book no. 3348 and it transpired that no deposit of entry tax of Rs.7792/- on account of M/s. Star Iron Works had been made on 23-4-91. It is stated in the said complaint that in view of the facts stated above, it appears that some persons working under the guise of M/s. Pandey Octroi service 'and others' have committed a criminal offence of forgery and cheating under the relevant provisions of I. P. C. and also an offence under section 24 (l) (a) and 24 (l) (b) of the TEGMA Act, 1972. The police look up investigation on the F.I.R. recorded on the basis of the said complaint. M/s. Star Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. as well as Dilip Dalmia and C. M. Agarwal mentioned in the complaint have filed this application before this Court for quashing the proceeding started on the basis of the said F.I.R. 2. THE case of the petitioners as pleaded in the revisional application is summarised hereunder. The petitioner no. 2 is one of the officers of the company being the petitioner no. 1 herein. Petitioner no. 3 is the accountant of the said company. The company carries on the business of manufacturing high Voltage Overhead Electrical Transmission Line Materials. Railway Inserts etc. at its factory at Lilooah, Howrah wherein it employs nearly 850 workers. The company made payment of excise duty of over Rs.37 crores and customs duty of over Rs.29. 87 lakhs during the year 1990-91 and made payment of customs duly of about Rs.126 lakhs in the year 1991-92. besides other taxes like West Bengal Sales Tax, Central Sales Tax. Turnover Tax etc. One M/s. Kundi Brothers of Ludhiana is the supplier of steel forgings to the petitioner company. On 18th April, 1991 M/s. Kundi Brothers of Ludhiana despatched steel forgings through the carrier Super Fast Roadway Corporation of Ludhiana on door to door delivery basis to the petitioner company. The arrangement was that the said carrier would carry the forgings to the factory of the petitioner company where the goods would be inspected, tested and if not rejected then only payment in respect thereof would be made. The arrangement was that the said carrier would carry the forgings to the factory of the petitioner company where the goods would be inspected, tested and if not rejected then only payment in respect thereof would be made. In the instant case, the steel forgings in question were supplied by the said earner to the factory of the petitioner company on 25th April 1991, where these goods were inspected and tested subsequently and thereafter payment was made. The payment included not only the price of the goods but also all other charges in respect thereof including Octroi and/or Entry Tax under the TEGMA Act 1972. The property in the goods passed on to the petitioner company only after the goods were inspected and tested at the petitioner company's factory and until that time the petitioner company was neither the owner of the goods nor was the petitioner company in any way responsible for the movement of the goods or any dealings or transactions in respect thereof. The petitioners had no concern with the goods at the time when the same crossed the Check post barrier or entered the Calcutta Metropolitan Area and the liability for payment of the Octroi at that point of time was with M/s. Kundi Brothers and payment had been made by Kundi Brothers or on its behalf by its agent. The petitioner company cannot be held liable under sections 24 l) (a) or (b) of the TEGMA Act, 1972 and it had no occasion to make any declaration under section 13 of the tegma Act and hence the question of its omitting or failing to make such declaration does not arise. Similarly, the [petitioner company and/or petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no obligation to make payment of any entry tax at the entry point of goods and hence the question of evading payment of such tax by the petitioners or forging any document in connection therewith does not arise at all. The First Information Report did mat make out any criminal offence as against the petitioners and there is no charge or allegation that the petitioners have forged or fabricated any document. It is absurd to allege that the petitioner company having huge business dealings would indulge in evading entry tax of Rs.7792/- Only and that too by forging a receipt. On 26th September, 1991 some Inspectors of the opposite party no. It is absurd to allege that the petitioner company having huge business dealings would indulge in evading entry tax of Rs.7792/- Only and that too by forging a receipt. On 26th September, 1991 some Inspectors of the opposite party no. 1, namely, the bureau of Investigation, Octroi Department visited the Registered Office of the petitioner company and called upon the petitioner no. 2 to produce all documents in possession of the petitioner company relating to Kundi Brothers and the petitioner no. 2 produced the files containing invoices, consignment notes, inspection reports etc. and the Inspector seized some of such files and issued a seizure receipt under section 22 (f) of the TEGMA Act. The said files did not contain any Entry Tax receipt in Form- V issued under TEGMA Act inasmuch as the price of the goods supplied by M/s. Kundi Brothers included freight and Entry Tax and/pr Octroi under TEGMA Act. All documents relating to payment of Entry Tax under the TEGMA Act were in possession of the said supplier Kundi Brothers. By a Notice dated 5th October, 1991 the opposite party no. 1 called upon the petitioner company to produce Entry Tax receipt under the TEGMA Act in respect of entry of various goods purchased by the petitioner company and which crossed the Entry Tax Check post during the period 16th October, 1990 to 26th September, 1991. The petitioner company thereafter requested Kundi Brothers to send relevant receipts relating to payment of Entry Tax during the period in question and thereafter the representative of the petitioner company in Delhi went to Ludhiana and obtained receipts relating to payment of Entry Tax on the consignment sent by M/s. Kundi Brothers to the petitioner company during the period in question. On 28th October, 1991 the petitioner no. 3 produced before the inspector of the opposite party no. 1 various records including Entry Tax receipts received from M/s. Kundi Brothers and the Inspector seized the Entry Tax money Receipt bearing serial no. AM-645780 dated 23-4-91 for Rs.7792/-and relevant Form- IV and granted a seizure receipt under section 22 (1) of the tegma Act. The Form- V which was seized by the officers of the opposite party no. 1 on 28th October, 1991 was obtained by the petitioner company from m/s. Kundi Brothers for being produced before the officers of the opposite party no. The Form- V which was seized by the officers of the opposite party no. 1 on 28th October, 1991 was obtained by the petitioner company from m/s. Kundi Brothers for being produced before the officers of the opposite party no. 1 in pursuance of the Notice: dated 5th October, 1991 and the petitioners had no role to play in payment or deposit of any Entry Tax and/or octroi with regard to the consignment in question. On the averments and allegations noted above, the petitioners have come up now for quashing the proceedings in the Polba Case No. 42 of 1992 dated 4th March, 1992. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the written complaint on the basis of which the F.I.R, was recorded does not contain sufficient materials to show the commission of any offence under sections 24 (l) (a) and (b) of the TEGMA Act. 1972 and 468/471/120b I.P.C. In this connection, he also attracted my attention to the provisions of sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. etc. and made submissions about the required ingredients of offences punishable under the said sections for the purpose of impressing that the written complaint on the basis of which the F.I.R, was drawn up does not disclose necessary ingredients of the offences nor does the complaint contain any specific allegation against the present petitioners regarding the commission of the offences mentioned therein. In this connection, it is however to be noted that the written complaint to the police in lodging the F.I.R for the purpose of prompting the police to start an investigation thereon need not be an encyclopedia containing all details of the offence and the offenders. It will be absurd to hold that unless all the ingredients of an offence are elaborately spelt out in the F.I.R, and unless all the details about offenders are mentioned in the F.I.R, there cannot be any investigation. We may take a very common example. Suppose there has been a theft in the house of a person at night. It will be absurd to hold that unless all the ingredients of an offence are elaborately spelt out in the F.I.R, and unless all the details about offenders are mentioned in the F.I.R, there cannot be any investigation. We may take a very common example. Suppose there has been a theft in the house of a person at night. The person discovers on waking up in the next morning in the previous night while he was asleep by some open a window of his room and he also discovers that certain articles have been taken away by the thieves and then he goes to the police station and lodges an F.I.R by stating that in the previous night a theft has been committed in his house and the thief or the thieves have also taken away certain articles specified by him. As he did not see the thieves obviously he cannot name the thieves in the F.I.R. It will be an absurd proposition to argue in the circumstances that the F.I.R, should be quashed and the police should be debarred from embarking upon any investigation on the basis of that F.I.R because the informal has simply slated that there was a theft in his house without stating the necessary ingredients of theft as defined in section 378 I.P.C. , to be precise, that some person or persons had moved some articles from his room in the previous night in order to take away such articles with the intention of dishonestly taking away the same out of his possession and without his consent. This certainly cannot be the requirement of law for starting an investigation on the allegation of theft. It is also equally an absurd proposition to say that unless the names of all the offenders are stated in the F.I.R fully disclosing in what manner they are involved in the commission of the alleged offence or offences, there cannot be any investigation at all. It is also equally an absurd proposition to say that unless the names of all the offenders are stated in the F.I.R fully disclosing in what manner they are involved in the commission of the alleged offence or offences, there cannot be any investigation at all. On the other hand it must not be lost sight of that law provides for police investigation in respect of cognizable offences where there is reason to suspect the commission of any such offence and the very purpose of investigation is to ascertain whether really any such offence was committed and if so in what manner it was committed, what evidence are available and who are the persons who committed such offence as well as other offences, if any, associated therewith. 3. IN the present case it has been clearly stated in the F.I.R that the Entry tax Money Receipt purporting to show payment of Entry Tax for a particular consignment on a particular date was verified with the relevant office copy maintained in the" office of the Entry Tax Officer and on such verification it transpired that no deposit of Entry Tax of the particular amount was shown in the receipt had been deposited on the concerned date on account of M/s. Star Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. It has been also stated in the F.I.R that in view of the facts stated therein, it appears that some persons working under the guise of m/s. Pandey Octroi Service and Others lave committed the criminal offence of forgery and cheating under the relevant provisions of the I. P. C. and also offence under sections 24 (l) (a) and 24 (l[| (b) of the TEGMA Act, 1972. Therefore, if the allegations in the F.I.R are prima facie taken to be true it would appear that no Entry Tax for the particular consignment was in fact paid but a faked receipt was brought into existence for showing payment of such Entry tax on the particular consignment. Prima facie, therefore, there is valid reason to suspect that there has been evasion of the payment of Entry Tax on a particular consignment which is prima facie an offence punishable under section 24 (1) (b) of the TEGMA Act. Prima facie, therefore, there is valid reason to suspect that there has been evasion of the payment of Entry Tax on a particular consignment which is prima facie an offence punishable under section 24 (1) (b) of the TEGMA Act. There is, therefore, also prima facie reason to suspect the commission of forgery and cheating in connection with the suspected evasion of payment of Entry Tax otherwise there would not have been a faked receipt regarding payment of Entry Tax. The question whether the commission of the suspected offences will be ultimately substantiated is required to be primarily ascertained through investigation by the police and then finally at the trial. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that if any offence of evasion of Entry Tax or the offence of forgery and cheating were committed by anyone in connection with the concerned consignment such evasion according to the F.I.R. was committed by M/s. Pandey Octroi Service who were engaged by Kundi Brothers for clearance of Entry Tax matters and who were responsible, if at all, for matters connected with payment of Entry tax and the petitioners have absolutely got nothing to do with that. The petitioners, it has been submitted, on the requisition of the officers of the opposite party collected the relevant document, namely, the Entry Tax receipt from kundi Brothers at Ludhiana. It has further been submitted that the petitioner company is a very big business concern and is paying different taxes and duties running into crores of rupees and it is absurd to suggest or think that such a company or it officers can be involved in any way with the commission of offence of evasion of Entry Tax to the extent of only rupees seven thousand and odd and that too where they have no responsibility to pay such tax. In this connection, it is however to be noted that in the F.I.R, the allegation is not made only against M/s. Pandey Octroi but the allegation has been also made against unidentified 'others' are indeed matters of investigation. The question as to whether some persons are likely to commit an offence is also a matter which has to be considered not in an isolated way but in the backdrop of the totality of the facts and circumstances which can be unearthed or ascertained by investigation. The question as to whether some persons are likely to commit an offence is also a matter which has to be considered not in an isolated way but in the backdrop of the totality of the facts and circumstances which can be unearthed or ascertained by investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it appears quite likely from the clues available from the investigation so far done that even apart from the evasion of tax on this particular consignment, there are also other instances involving huge amount of loss to the public exchequer on this account which can be unearthed only after a free and full-fledged investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that in View of the interim stay order the investigation could not proceed much and it is urgently necessary that the investigation should be allowed to proceed unhindered so that the entire picture may emerge and the real offenders may be brought to book. 4. THE power of investigation in respect of as cognizable offence rests with the police. The law is by established that the court should not interfere with police investigation light grounds. It is also not expected that in every case be details of the offence and the identity of all the offenders can be ascertain by the informant before going to lodge the information with police have been the law that the First Information Report must contain a full picture showing the details of the details has to how and by whom the offence alleged has been committed, then there would perhaps be no necessity of investigation of the invested by police. The very purpose of lodging an F.I.R is to actuate the police to undertake investigation for unearthing the details of the commission of the offence including the identity of the offenders. It is also not necessary that for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the police to undertake an investigation in a congnizable case the details about the manner of commissions of the alleged offence and the identity of the offenders must be there in the F.I.R so that then and then only the police can take up the investigation and not otherwise. In this connection, we may refer to section 157 (1) Cr. In this connection, we may refer to section 157 (1) Cr. P.C. which empowers the police to embark on an investigation in a cognizable case if from information received or otherwise an officer- in- charge of police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate. This makes it clear that the police can investigate a cognizable offence on suspicion on the basis of information received or otherwise. Of course, it is needless to mention that the suspicion must be based on reason and must not be capricious, whimsical or fanciful and police has been vested with that power in the interest of the community. If the law is so interpreted that police can embark upon an investigation of cognizable offence only when the crime has been clearly established in contradistinction to the stage of suspicion then perhaps there would have been no necessity of investigation by the police at all. It is not that the offences are always committed in broad day-light and with full publicity to the knowledge of everyone or many so that the investigation by the police may not be necessary On the contrary, very often crimes are committed in a clandestine way with dexterous manipulation for the purpose of ensuring evasion of detection. To hold that the police cannot embark on investigation of acognizable offence unless the informant, instead of merely outlining the commission of an offence by some known or unknown offenders gives full particulars about the details and the manner of commission of the offence and the identity of the offenders, will be tantamount to a negation of the basic idea behind the necessity, role and purpose of police investigation regarding cognizable offence. In respect of non-cognizable offence the police however has no power to investigate unless directed by the Magistrate. The learned Advocate for the petitioner attracted my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal A. I. R. 1992 s. C. 604. In that decision also the Supreme Court considered the ambit of the provision of section 157 (1) Cr. The learned Advocate for the petitioner attracted my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal A. I. R. 1992 s. C. 604. In that decision also the Supreme Court considered the ambit of the provision of section 157 (1) Cr. P. C. regarding the power of the police to embark on investigation in respect of a cognizable offence and made the following observation in para-51 at page-618 (ibid):- "resultantly, the condition precedent to the commencement of the investigation under section 157 (1) of the code is the existence of the reason to suspect the commission of cognizable offence which has to be, prima facie, disclosed by the allegations made in the first information laid before the police officer under section 154 (1)". It can therefore be aptly stated that the amplitude of the investigatory jurisdiction of the police in respect of a cognizable offence traverses a journey line marked by a non-volatile suspicion at the starting point - non-volatile because the suspicion must be based on reason and not on caprice or fancy - and by a presentable conclusion, one way or the other at the end point. In the present case undoubtedly the first information report, as we have seen, contains allegations - and that too, based on some tested materials - which prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences; such as forgery, cheating and evasion of payment of Entry Tax. The F.I.R, in this case definitely prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and unmistakably affords reason to suspect commission of such offences and thereby attracts the jurisdiction of the police to embark on an investigation into the matter. 5. THE Supreme Court in the said decision (ibid) laid down certain guidelines in the matter of exercising the power to quash an F.I.R or the criminal proceeding under Article 226, or under section 482 Cr. P. C. These guidelines are re-produced below:- 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 entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. P. C. These guidelines are re-produced below:- 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 entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under' section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the un controverted allegations made in the F.I.R or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R, do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations mads in the F.I.R or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior native for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 6. THE guideline no. 1 as noted above is attracted where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if taken at face value 'do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused'. In this connection it may be noted that this guideline purports to apply to two different types of proceedings, vis. 1 as noted above is attracted where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if taken at face value 'do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused'. In this connection it may be noted that this guideline purports to apply to two different types of proceedings, vis. (1) to investigation on the basis of the first information report and (2) to proceeding started in court on the basis of complaint as defined in section 2 (d) of the Code. For obvious reason the requirement of the said guideline that a case against the accused must be made out primarily applies to a proceeding started in the court on the basis of a complaint and this requirement is not necessarily applicable to an investigation started on the basis of F.I.R Generally a person makes complain in court with a view to prosecuting one or more others when he (the complainant) is fully possessed of the necessary facts and circumstances making out the commission of any offence by any particular person or persons where the question of further investigation by the police does not arise. In such a case the complainant himself takes the responsibility of establishing the case against the particular accused. Therefore if the complaint filed in the court does not prima facie make out a case against the accused the same is liable to be quashed. But this is not the invariable test where an F.I.R. is lodged and the investigation is started thereon by police in respect of a cognizable offence. Very often it so happens that while the informant is aware of only the broad features of the commission of a cognizable offence either on the basis of his personal knowledge or on the basis of information received by him, he does not know the identity of the offender. Take the instance of a case where a person noticed on a desolate road at night that someone who he could not identify in the darkness threw a bomb at another man and fled away. The man sustained severe injury due to the bomb-blast and died on the spot. The person who noticed the incident rushed to the police station and lodged F.I.R, to the effect that someone had committed murder by throwing a bomb but he could not identify the offender. The man sustained severe injury due to the bomb-blast and died on the spot. The person who noticed the incident rushed to the police station and lodged F.I.R, to the effect that someone had committed murder by throwing a bomb but he could not identify the offender. It will be an absurd proposition that in such a case the police cannot embark upon an investigation as to who was the offender who threw the bomb, and the F.I.R. or the investigation thereon is liable to be quashed on the ground that the F.I.R. does not make out a case against the accused who might have been arrested by the police during investigation on the basis of available clue. It very often becomes necessary to place a person arrested on the basis of suspicion or clue projected during investigation in connection with the commission of a cognizable offence in T. I. parade but it will be a travesty of justice if the F.I.R or the investigation against the accused arrested on suspicion or on clue has to be quashed even before the conclusion of the investigation simply on the ground that the F.I.R does not make out a case against the accused. Even in a case, say in a case of murder, where only one person has been named in the F.I.R. as the accused committing the offence investigation may reveal that there were also other persons involved in the alleged crime or in crimes associated therewith by way of making conspiracy or by way of concealing the evidence of the commission of the offence. Even when the investigation reveals that certain other persons besides those named in the F.I.R were also involved in the alleged offence or any offence associated therewith, it will be a gross failure of justice to hold that the investigation or the result of investigation relating to those persons must be quashed simply because they were not initially named in the F.I.R The very purpose of the law in providing for police investigation in case of cognizable offence will be totally shattered and frustrated in a large number of cases to the lamentable detriment of the community and the peace-loving constituents of the society, if the law is so interpreted that unless the F.I.R makes out a case against the particular accused challenging the proceeding, the investigation started thereon will have to be quashed for that reason alone although the F.I.R may very clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence. It must be borne in mind that there is a gulf of difference in approach towards a proceeding start in court on the basis of complaint and towards the investigation proceed in started on the basis of F.I.R In a proceeding started on the basis on a complain filed in the court the complainant generally comes forward with a specific case against the particular accused person or persons not only regarding the offence alleged but also regarding the manner of commission of such offence and takes upon himself the responsibility of establishing the case against the particular offenders named by him. In the case of an investigation started on the basis of F.I.R the position for obvious reason may not be so in a large number of cases where the informant only knows about the commission of an offence but does not know the details and the manner of commission of such offence nor does he know the identity of the offenders thereby necessitating police investigation in the matter. It is therefore evident that having a composite texture of phraseology the guideline no. 1 (ibid), so far as it refers to the requirement of making out of a case against the accused, relates primarily to proceedings started in court by filing a complaint while the requirement that the allegations are to prima facie constitute an offence relates both to the F.I.R and the complaint. 1 (ibid), so far as it refers to the requirement of making out of a case against the accused, relates primarily to proceedings started in court by filing a complaint while the requirement that the allegations are to prima facie constitute an offence relates both to the F.I.R and the complaint. Since in this case, as I have already pointed out, the F.I.R definitely discloses prima facie cognizable offence the police is certainly entitled to investigate the case notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners might not have been specifically named as accused therein. Guideline no. 2 (ibid)applies where the allegations in the F.I.R, and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation except under an order of a Magistrate. In the present case, however, the F.I.R, prima facie discloses cognizable offence. Therefore the said guideline no. 2 is not attracted here. Guideline no. 3 (ibid) applies where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R, or complaint and the evidence collected in support thereof do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. This guideline by its own terms applies to the proceeding of a police investigation at the stage when the investigation has been completed and the evidence collected during such investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or do not make out a case against the accused. In the present case the investigation has just started and the same has not yet been concluded and therefore time is not yet ripe for applying the test of this guideline here and now. In its application to a complaint also, this guideline requires the evidence forthcoming in the matter to be taken into consideration along with the complaint in judging whether any offence is disclosed against the accused. Guideline no. 4 (ibid) applies where the allegations in the F.I.R. constitute only a non-cognizable offence which however is not the case here. Here the allegations prima facie constitute cognizable offences. Guideline no. 5 (ibid)applies where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Here the allegations prima facie constitute cognizable offences. Guideline no. 5 (ibid)applies where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is needless to mention that the allegations made in the F.I.R. in this case regarding the commission of the offences of the forgery, cheating and evasion of tax on the basis of the prima facie materials mentioned therein are neither absurd nor inherently improbable. The question as to who are the persons who might have been involved in the commission of these offences and whether there was any conspiracy in the matter are expected to be answered only after a thorough investigation. There cannot be any question of gagging the investigation at this stage. 7. GUIDELINE no. 6 (ibid) is attracted where there is any legal bar to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, etc. which however is not the case here. Guideline no. 7 (ibid) applies where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding's maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused out of any private or personal grudge which however is not even remotely suggested here. In the circumstances, I find absolutely no reason to throttle the investigation of this case which has been started on the basis of specific allegations made in the F.I.R. and which allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. The quashing of F.I.R. and the investigation started thereon may be warranted when the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not even prima facie constitute any cognizable offence or when the allegations made in the F.I.R. contain full factual details regarding the offence leaving nothing more to be discovered by investigation and yet no case is made out against the accused. Here the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence but does not profess to contain the full details of the manner of the commission of the same as well as the identity of all the persons who might have been involved in the commission of such offence which facts can be discovered only by a full-fledged police investigation. Here the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence but does not profess to contain the full details of the manner of the commission of the same as well as the identity of all the persons who might have been involved in the commission of such offence which facts can be discovered only by a full-fledged police investigation. In a situation like this it will be a gross misdirection of the court's extra-ordinary power to quash the proceeding by pre-empting the result of police investigation. This is again not to say that in such circumstances the person suffering from an apprehension has no remedy whatsoever. The law has taken adequate care to protect the interest of the individuals where such protection is warranted by the facts and circumstances of any case and that is why there are the provisions of hail and anticipatory bail. If a person feels that during the investigation of a cognizable case started on the basis of an F.I.R, which prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, he is being suspected by the police in connection with the alleged offence or with any offence associated therewith, whether he has been named in the F.I.R, as an accused or not and if he apprehends that he may be arrested in connection with any such offence the proper remedy for him is to approach the appropriate relief if that is admissible in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the investigation. This revisional application is, therefore, dismissed with the direction that the investigation do proceed according to law. The interim stay order granted by a learned Judge of this Court on this revisional application by order dated 17-3-92 stands vacated. Stay of operation of this order, as verbally prayed for, is rejected. Application rejected.