Honble TIBREWAL, J. – The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash FIR No. 508 registered at Police Station Sanganer for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 102-B and 218 IPC as well the subsequent investigation made thereupon. (2). The dispute relates to land bearing Khasra Nos. 495 and 503 measuring 9 bigha 13 biswa situated in village Charanwala alias Hargun Ki Nangal, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. With regard to the said land a complaint was also filed by non-petitioner Kan Sngh in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 Jaipur City. The said complaint was filed against Sanwaldan, the father of the petitioner No.1, and one Ram Sahai s/o Akheydan. A copy of the said complaint has been placed on record as Annexure 6. (3). The crux of the FIR No. 508/92 is that the aforesaid land bearing Khasra Nos. 495 and 503 was sold to the informant-Kan Singh by Sanwaldan and Ram Sahai through an agreement dated 31.3.70 and thereafter, a sale-deed was executed and registered in his favour on May 15, 1974, but mutation of the said land could not take place in his favour as the informant could not pursue the matter as he lived outside. It was further alleged that in the report that Raguraj S/o Sanwaldan, who is Lower Division Clerk in Tehsil Sanganer, got prepared forged pe-degree in collusion with, the then Patwari, Girdawar and Tehsildar and a part of the aforesaid land i.e. 1/48 share got transferred vide a registered sale-deed in favour of his wife Manohar Kanwar on the basis of general power of attorney obtained from Bhanwar Bai wife of Shri Kishoredan and as such the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 120-B and 218 IPC were committed by the accused-persons. (4). It was contended by Mr. Rathore that the matter was thoroughly investigated by the then SHO Police Station Sanganer and he recommended for submi- ssion of final report in the matter on 8.5.93, but the informant, who has retired as a Sub-Inspector of Police, got the investigation transferred from DIG Jaipur Range and investigation was handed over to Dy. S.P. in the office of DIG Range Jaipur. Then, on the request of the petitioner No.1 the file was called by the Inspector General, CID (CB) and it was handed over to the Vigilance Section for scrutiny. S.P. in the office of DIG Range Jaipur. Then, on the request of the petitioner No.1 the file was called by the Inspector General, CID (CB) and it was handed over to the Vigilance Section for scrutiny. It was stated that hereto the informant non-petitioner exercised his influence for fresh investigation by the Special Investigation Section. It appears that on the request of petitioner, DIG Range Jaipur ordered the investigating officer for fresh investigation. It appears that both the parties are making tug of war requesting to the higher authorities for transfer of the investigation to an officer of their choice. It also appears that a revenue suit for declaration of injunction is also pending between the parties in the Court of A.C.M. Chaksu in relation to the land in question. (5). It was contended by Mr. Rathore learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the investigating agency is mis- directing itself in not considering the relevant record in order to file a charge-sheet. It is also contended that if all the facts and circumstances in relation to the land in question are taken into consideration then no offence is made out against the petitioners for submitting a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that initiation of criminal proceedings by the informant is highly belated and that no step is being taken by him to proceed with the complaint case, which was filed earlier. Reliance is placed by Mr. Rathore on State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors. (1). Mr. Rathore wanted this Court to consider the various documents, which have been filed alongwith the petition. (6). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, contended that the power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal case is highly restricted and no interference should be made by this Court at the initial stage of investigation and the matter should be left to the investigating agency. (7). In State of West Bengal vs. Sanchaita Investments & Ors. (supra) Mr. Rathore has placed reliance on para Nos. 64, 65 and 83, which are reproduced as under :– ``In my opinion, the legal position is well-settled. (7). In State of West Bengal vs. Sanchaita Investments & Ors. (supra) Mr. Rathore has placed reliance on para Nos. 64, 65 and 83, which are reproduced as under :– ``In my opinion, the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not nrma- lly interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. The observations of this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier quoted, make this position abundantly clear. The propositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier noted, are based on sound principles of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed any investigation in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathe- ring necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper inves- tigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the case of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of these principles that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The decisions on which Mr. It is on the basis of these principles that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The decisions on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an offence had been disclosed. Relying on the well settled and sound principles that the Court should not interfere with an investigation into an offence at the stage of investigation and should allow the investigation to be completed, this Court had made the observations in the said decisions which I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound principle of justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of law that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation, even to this specific question as to whether an investigation can go on even if no offence is disclosed, the Judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (2), and this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (3) Jehan Singh vs. Delhi Administration (4), S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (5) have clearly laid down that no investigation can be permitted and have made the observations which I have earlier quoted and which were relied on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this proposition is not only based on sound logic but is also based on fun- damental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investigation which is likely to put his personal liberty and also property which are considered sacred and sacrosanct into peril and jeopardy. 65. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the FIR and the Court may in appro- priate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence, if, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any inves- tigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual. 83. I, therefore, hold that the proceedings against the firm and its partners arising out of the FIR must be quashed as the FIR and the other materials do not disclose any offence under the Act and as such no investigation into the affairs of the firm under the Act can be permitted or allowed to be continued. I, accordingly, quash the proceedings against the firm and its partners and order that no investigation under the Act into affairs of the firm is to be carried on or continued. (8). In Janta Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary (6), the Supreme Cout has again dealt with the scope of inherent powers conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it was held thus : (para 135) ``This inherent power conferred by S. 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Harayana vs. Ch. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Harayana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (7), to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. It is also further reiterated that at the stage of the FIR the Courts should refrain from interfering when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and statutory power of police to investigate cannot be interfered with in exercise of the inherent power of the Court. (9). In Union of India & Ors. B.R. Baja & Ors., it was held as under :– ``8. In the instant case the High Court while interfering at the stage of FIR holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact took into consideration several other records produced by respondents No.1 and 2 and also relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Banerjee and also on a letter written by the Director, State Lotteries. This approach of the High Court, to say the least, to some extent amounts to investigation by the Court whether the ofences alleged in the FIR are made out or not. In the FIR it is clearly mentioned that a false note was recorded by Respondent No.1 with a view to help M/s. Om Prakash & Co. and its sister concerns. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the information so far received disclosed that before the agreement dated 7.11.85 was signed between M/s H.K. Chugh & Co. and the Council, M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala sent a telegram and also complaint alleging mal-practices in the awarding of the contract and the same was also sent to the President and Shri S.R. Bajaj. However, even after receiving such a telegram, Shri B.R. Bajaj did not take any steps to stop the loss of the Council because of his deep involvement in the conspiracy and it is also clearly mentioned that the total loss caused to the Council and gain to the accused persons is to the tune of Rs. 1,43,34,000/- when compared to the next higher tenderer M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala. 1,43,34,000/- when compared to the next higher tenderer M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala. These are some of the important allegations in the FIR which make out a cognizable offence at that stage and the registration of an FIR is only the beginning of the investigation. That being the cause, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the FIR itself when several aspects of the allegations in the FIR had still to be investigated. The learned Judge of the High Court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence has taken into consideration several aspects including the guidelines, normal duty of Shri B.R. Bajaj etc. and went further and investigated whether the offences under S. 120-B read with Ss. 418, 468 IPC and Section 5(2) read with S. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge has treated the whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of conviction and that should never be the approach in exercising the inherent power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. particularly at the stage of FIR when the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by police. We do not think that in this case we should make a further detailed consideration about the contents of the FIR. We are satisfied that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. (10). A perusal of the various judgments of the Supreme Court makes it clear that at the stage of the FIR the Court should refrain from interfering when report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and statutory powers of police to investigate cannot be inferred with exercise of inherent powers of the Court. (11). Mr. Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that this Court should consider the various documents which have been filed alongwith this petition for holding that, prima facie, commission of a cognizable offence is not made out and as such the FIR in question and investigation made on it be quashed. I am afraid, the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be enlarged to this extent as contended by Mr. Rathore. I am afraid, the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be enlarged to this extent as contended by Mr. Rathore. To see whether the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not, the Court can took into only that material which has been submitted alongwith the FIR only. If the averments made in the FIR or the documents annexed with the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence, then, it is for the police to investigate the matter and collect the evidence. At this stage no interference is called for by any Court, as the powers and jurisdiction of the investigating agency as well as the Courts are distinct and independent to each other. Having gone through the contents of the FIR, without making detailed consideration, I am of the opinion that Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised by this Court to quash the same after considering the various documents, which have been filed alongwith this petition. It it the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to consider each and every aspect of the matter. It is expected from the investigating agency to take into consideration all the documents, which are filed before it during the investigation. (12). From the material on record, it appears that both the parties are exercising their influence and there has been a tug of war between them to get the investigation by a person of their choice. It also appears that the higher officers have been transferring the investigation of the case from one hand to another, on the request of either of the parties. It is not fair and just. The investigating agency should be fair and above reach and if investigating officers are capable of being influenced by either of the parties, they are dis-qualified to make the investigation. (13). Taking into consideration the long battle between the parties and the issues which are involved in the matter, I am inclined to give direction that investigation of the case should be made by an independent higher Police Officer, so that, either of the parties may not exercise his influence over him. The DIG Range, Jaipur is, therefore, directed to hand-over the investigation of FIR No. 508/92 registered at Police Station Sanganer to a responsible Senior Police Officer, preferably of the rank of Additional S.P. to ensure a fair investigation in the matter, in case the charge-sheet has not been filed so far. The DIG Range, Jaipur is, therefore, directed to hand-over the investigation of FIR No. 508/92 registered at Police Station Sanganer to a responsible Senior Police Officer, preferably of the rank of Additional S.P. to ensure a fair investigation in the matter, in case the charge-sheet has not been filed so far. The new Investigating Officer should independently examine the matter and the various documents which have been filed so far or likely to be filed subsequently before him by the parties. The petitioners shall be free to produce the documents before the investigating officer on which they want to place reliance. (14). A copy of this order be sent to the concerned DIG Range for doing the needful. (15). The petition stands disposed of, as indicated above.