JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is for invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR No. 68/94 for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 353, 448 & 380 IPC of the Police Station, Khinvsar and pending investigation proceedings relating thereto. 2. Complainant Shiv Ram submitted a complaint against the petitioner and his brothers in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur inter alia alleging that in the property mentioned therein of late Banshi Lal, Smt. Anchi and her daughter Kamla are residing being the legal representatives of late Banshi Lal Kamla was married at Jaipur. In April, 1994 Smt. Anchi became indisposed and the petitioners, their brothers and Smt. Jhankari got executed a sale-deed of the property in question in the name of Smt. Jhankari wife of petitioner Naresh fraudulently and under undue influence without any consideration. When this fact came to the knowledge of Smt. Kamla, she filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaur, where the suit is still pending. It is said that the learned Civil Judge has passed interim order for maintaining the status quo with regard to the property in question. It is alleged that Smt. Anchi and Kamla handed over the possession of the property to the complainant, who let it out to Jetha Ram. According to the complainant the property in question is never in the possession of the petitioners. It is further alleged that in August, 1994, the petitioners and their family members broke the lock of the house and forcibly took its possession and stolen away the articles, which were lying in the house. Thus wrong trespass in the house in question and the theft of the articles lying therein by the petitioners and their family members has been alleged in the complaint. The complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal case was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused persons relating the property in question when the civil suit in respect of the same property is pending in the Civil Court. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal case was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused persons relating the property in question when the civil suit in respect of the same property is pending in the Civil Court. According to him where a civil litigation is pending on the basis of material on which a criminal complaint was based the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the condition that the complainant would be entitled to seek its revival on the conclusion of the civil proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no criminal complaint can be proceeded when a civil litigation is already pending and as such the FIR lodged against the petitioners and the investigation relating thereto are liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. A perusal of the copy of the complaint and the application under O. 39 Rules 1 & 2 filed along therewith would show that it was filed before the Civil Court on 13.6.1994. By the civil suit the plaintiff Smt. Kamla has sought the cancellation of the sale- deed executed by her mother Smt. Anchi on 4.5.94 and got registered on 6.5.94 and the defendants were sought to be permanently restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the possession and ownership of the property in question. It has been averred in the complaint that the possession of the property is with the plaintiff. On these pleadings the civil Court has ordered that the status quo in respect of the property in question should be maintained. 6. In the criminal complaint the incident of alleged trespass and theft has stated to have taken place in August, 1994, that is to say, subsequent to the filing of the civil suit. Therefore, the subject-matter of the civil suit and the criminal case are different and not similar. The civil suit is in respect of the cancellation of the sale-deed and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff. The criminal complaint is not in respect of the execution of the alleged sale-deed, but is with regard to the alleged trespass and theft, which is stated to have been taken place after the civil suit. The criminal complaint is not in respect of the execution of the alleged sale-deed, but is with regard to the alleged trespass and theft, which is stated to have been taken place after the civil suit. Therefore, in my opinion the criminal complaint is not based on the basis of the material, which is subject-matter of the civil litigation. In the case in hand the criminal complaint is quite independent of the civil litigation. 7. The law relating to the quashing the FIR and the investigation is that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power will not quash an FIR more-so when the investigation is under progress and no proceeding is pending in any Court in pursuance of the FIR. The High Court has neither power to quash proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR made to the police in a cognizable offence nor power to interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate a cognizable offence. It is also well settled that even if the High Court can quash a criminal investigation if the FIR discloses no cognizable offence, yet the police investigation cannot be quashed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction if it involves an appreciation of evidence. If any ruling is needed to the above proposition of law : Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar & Ors., AIR 1992 SCW 2187 , (2) Union of India & Anr. v. W.N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082 , (3) Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1989 Cr.L.J. 1013 may useful be referred to. There are matters which can be examined only by the concerning Court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. Therefore in very exceptional cases the FIR and the investigation relating thereto should be interfered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Surat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 RCC 474 , Ghisilal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1994 RCC 611 , Misri Lal v. Tota Ram, 1984 Cr.L.J. 1338 (Del) , to support his argument that where the civil case is pending the criminal proceedings should not be proceeded. A perusal of these rulings would show that in these cases the matter was already decided by the civil Court and in consequence thereof the investigations were interfered. A perusal of these rulings would show that in these cases the matter was already decided by the civil Court and in consequence thereof the investigations were interfered. In the case in hand the civil litigation has not yet been decided it is still pending in the civil Court. In my opinion, therefore, these rulings do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1994 Cr.L.J. NOC 409 (P&H) . In this ruling the civil suit was also decided on the basis of a compromise and as a consequence thereof the criminal proceedings were set aside holding that the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise in view of the order passed by the civil Court. Obviously this ruling is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In my opinion the non-interference in the present FIR in hand and investigation relating thereto would not result in the miscarriage of justice and there does not also seem to be any abuse of the process of any Court and as such no case is made out for the interference in the FIR and the investigation under the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. In the result the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. is hereby dismissed.Misc. Petition rejected. *******