Usha Mehra J. ( 1 ) SH. SURINDER Arora has sought the quashing. of the First Information Report No. 619/94 registered against him under Section 409, 467, 468,471, 474, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in P. S. Connaught Place, New Delhi, and the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch. Quashing, order has been sought, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Liaison Consultancy Services, on 10th August,1984, Mr. H. S. Sandhu and his wife Smt. Shiela Sandhu constituted a private trust under the name and style of Satazo Trust with Sh. P. N. Mehta as Trustee for the benefit of their children. By a subsequent resolution Mr. H. S. Sandhu and Mrs. Shiela Sandhu resigned and Mrs. Sumitra Chisti became the trustee. In the capacity of a real Estate Agent, the petitioner negotiated for and on behalf of his client M/s Satazo Trust for the purchase of entire 11th floor, measuring 800 sq. ft. in the proposed multistoried building "narain Manzil" 23, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi. Negotiations were done with M/s Inder Pratap Singh and sons HUP. On 15th 0ctober,1992 Smt. Sumitra Chisti, applied to the said M/s Inder Pratap Singh, HUF for the allotment of said property. The aplication was signed by Smt. Sumitra Chisti as Trustee and the petitioner as estate agent. The builder agreed to sell the entire 11th floor to M/s Satazo Trust at the rate of Rs. 3,850. 00 per sq. ft. beside other levies. On 22nd 0ctober,1992 a statement of transfer of immoveable property was signed by Sh. inder Pratap Singh, HUF and Smt. Sumitra Chisti. The same was submitted to the appropriate authorities of Income Tax under Section 269 UC of Income Tax Act. The appropriate authority gave no objection to the transfer of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 3. 08 crores. Somewhere in February, 1994 the said Trustee Smt. Sumitra Chisti approached various property brokers because she decided to sell the complete 11th floor. She also indicated her intention to the petitioner for the sale of the said property. Petitioner agreed to purchase the entire 11th floor for a total consideration of Rs. 4. 84 crores, pursuance to which an agreement to sell was also executed between him and Mr. Sumitra Chisti. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 4. She also indicated her intention to the petitioner for the sale of the said property. Petitioner agreed to purchase the entire 11th floor for a total consideration of Rs. 4. 84 crores, pursuance to which an agreement to sell was also executed between him and Mr. Sumitra Chisti. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 4. 84 lacs as part payment against the total consideration by cheque drawn on Sanwa Bank Ltd. and also informed the appropriate authorities about the transfer of the said property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 4. 84 crorers. The appropriate authority issued No Objection Certificate for the transfer of the abovesaid 11th floor in favour of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that price of the property shoot up as a result of which Smt. Sumitra Chisti the trustee became dishonest. She tried to wriggle out of the agreement with the petitioner. To pressurise the petitioner, Sh. H. S. Sandhu threatened to cancel the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and offered to refund the amount. When the petitioner refused to oblige him, Mr. Sandhu threatened to liquidate and kidnap the petitioner. Petitioner was surprised to read public notice appearing in the Evening Newspaper on 15th July,1994, onbehalf of the Trust dis-owning the factum of any agreemnt in favour of the petitioner and warning the public not to have any negotiation with the petitioner for the purchase of the said property. This also showed that the Trust had become dishonest. Petitioner on 22nd July,1994 lodged the complaint before the DCP giving the history of the case and dispute between the parties. Petitioner sent a notice for and on behalf of the Trust calling upon to deliver the original documents. Petitioner filed a suit in the High Court praying for declaration and injunction regarding the agreement pertaining to the said property. However, on 15th 0ctober,1994 a case was registered on the complaint of Sh. H. S. Sandhu, former Trustee of M/s Satazo Trust against the petitioner which is the FIR in question. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to petitioner false allegations have been levelled against him by Sh. H. S. Sandhu in his complaint which is the basis of the FIR in question. H. S. Sandhu, former Trustee of M/s Satazo Trust against the petitioner which is the FIR in question. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to petitioner false allegations have been levelled against him by Sh. H. S. Sandhu in his complaint which is the basis of the FIR in question. He in fact was acting as property dealer on behalf of the Trust in various transactions and that he was in possession of the original documents of properties of the Trust. Trust wanted tosell this property for which purpose original document was handed over to the petitioner. However,to implicate the petitioner it has falsely been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner represented that he had prospective buyer and put up the draft agreement for sale before H. S. Sandhu, obtained his signatures by falsely presenting the facts. Further on the same day the petitioner without the knowledge of Mr. Sandhu took another draft agreement to Smt. Sumitra Chisti and obtained her signatures without disclosing to her that it was in fact an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. She signed it on the misrepresentation made by the petitoner that the draft had already been approved by Mr. H. S. Sandhu. Accepting this version she signed the agreement without reading. Thus the allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner was trying to sell the property of the Trust as his own property and, therefore,. public through newspaper was made aware that the documents signed with the appropriate authorities were forged by the petitioner. It has further been alleged in the complaint that there was no account of the Trust where amount of Rs. l. 5 lacs had been paid as earnest money. That the petitioner gave wrong address of the Trust to the appropriate authorities. In fact he never paid any consideration with respect to the property in question. Thus complainant tried to build up a case against the petitioner of cheating, breach of trust by fraudulently inducing Smt. Sumitra Chisti to sign on the agreement to sell and thus commited the offence charged against him. On the complaint of Mr. H. S. Sandhu petitioner was arrested by the Crime Branch on 15th 0ctober,1994. He has been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 19th 0ctober,1994. On the complaint of Mr. H. S. Sandhu petitioner was arrested by the Crime Branch on 15th 0ctober,1994. He has been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 19th 0ctober,1994. ( 3 ) IT is in this background that the present petition has been filed challenging further investigation and the averments of the FIR, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and baseless. On the basis of evidence and documents available on record, no case has been made out against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. In fact it is the complainant who was guilty for filing false reports and creating false evidence against the petitioner. On the basis of this false complaint petitioner has been given mental torture. Moreover, the Trust has not been deprived of the property nor the possession has been passed on to the petitioner and that the signature on the agreement to sell are genuine signatures of Smt. Sumitra Chisti. As regards misrepresentation these are only allegations. Similarly there are counter allegations. Hence the petitioner could not be charged. Investigating agency has not been able to find out any evidence against the petitioner which could forcify the allegations made by the complainant Mr. H. S. Sandhu. Rather the evidence collected by the police substantiate the facts stated by the petitioner that Mr. H. S. Sandhu and others have fabricated the evidence against him to lodge a false report. Investigation on the complaint of Mr. H. S. Sandhu has been kept pending to pressurise the petitioner to cancel the agreement dated 13th March,1994, though investigating agency is fully satisfied that no case has been made out. It is in this background that the further investigation and the FIR lodged against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the chargesheet has not been filed till date. The matter is still at the stage of investigation on the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. Sandhu. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. H. J. S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the State is that the petitio under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. at this stage is not maintainable, because the Case is at a very initial stage of investigation and no proceedings are pending in the Court, therefore, the provisions of Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Sandhu. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. H. J. S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the State is that the petitio under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. at this stage is not maintainable, because the Case is at a very initial stage of investigation and no proceedings are pending in the Court, therefore, the provisions of Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. are not attracted in the facts of this case. ( 5 ) THE question for determination is whether the Court has inherrent power to quash the FIR and the investigation even though it is at a very initial stage? ( 6 ) MR. YOGESHWAR Prasad, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the facts of this case are such which has a colouring of civil nature, therefore, this court must exercise its inherrent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending before the Investigating Agency even though it may be at preliminary stage. In this regard he has placed reliance on (he decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Ors. V. Sumbhaji Rao Chandroji Rao Angre and Ors. (19s8) SCC 692, Janta Dal V. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors. 1993 SCC (Crl.) 36, State of Haryana And Ors. V. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and State of Bihar and Anr. V. P. P. Shanna, Indian Administrative Service and Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 222. . ( 7 ) BY placing reliance on these decisions, the main thrust of Mr. Prasad s contention is that even though in the normal circumstances this Court may not exercise its inherrent power under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings at a stage anterior to the Trial. But if the circumstances are such and the allegations levelled in the complaint does not make out a prima facie case of criminal nature then this Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings-even at a preliminary stage. So far as the principle of law is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel with the same but I am afraid the contention of Mr. Prasad in the facts of this case cannot be appreciated. Reliance by Mr. Prasad on the decision of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (Supra) is of no help to him. So far as the principle of law is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel with the same but I am afraid the contention of Mr. Prasad in the facts of this case cannot be appreciated. Reliance by Mr. Prasad on the decision of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (Supra) is of no help to him. In that case the court was concerned where the dispute was on account f the fall out of the relationship between the Settler and the Trustee i. e. the mother and the son. The wife of the co-trustee i. e. Son surrendered back the tenancy once the dispute arose. It was in this backdrop that the Court opined that it was not a case of criminal nature nor question of cheating or fraudulant intention could be inferred. The facts of that case were that Rajmata Smt. Vijaya Raje Scindia of Gwalior created a trust known as "srikrishna Madhava Trust" with four trustees in all including the settlor. Mr. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was one of the trustee. The- trust had a flat in Bombay known as "vijay Vilas" which was in occupation of a tenant. The said tenant vacated the premises. It was alleged that two officers of the Trust in conspiracy with Mr. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia gave the said flat on tenancy to his wife. He created documents showing tenancy in his wife s name. Complaint was registered punishable under Section 406/467 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code The plea taken by Mr. Madhav Rao Scindia, appellant before the Supreme Court, was that wife of the trustee was an independent person having her own income and the tenancy in her favour could not be considered a cheating. Moreover, the wife of the appellant had already surrendered the tenancy in favour of the Trust pursuance to the notice issued by the lawyer of the Trust. Surrender was voluntarily before the criminal action was initiated. Therefore, there was no justification for initiating criminal proceedings. There was in fact no mensria for the offence and that the offence, if any, amounted to civil wrong. Supreme Court taking these factors into consideration coupled with the fact that it was a family dispute allowed the quashing of the criminal proceedings, even though it was at a preliminary stage. But that is not the case in hand. in the present case the petitioner is an estate agent. Supreme Court taking these factors into consideration coupled with the fact that it was a family dispute allowed the quashing of the criminal proceedings, even though it was at a preliminary stage. But that is not the case in hand. in the present case the petitioner is an estate agent. The complainant s grievance is that he by misrepresentation procured her signatures and fabricated documents which were filed with the Income Tax Authorities. This was done with fraudulant intentions to cheat the trust of its property. Whether these allegations are correct or not, this is not the stage to go into the same. It would be known after the investigation is over. It is not a case of fall out of relation of a son and the mother. It is in fact a complaint based on specific allegation of fraud and cheating which requires investigation. Therefore, the decision in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. (Supra) is of no help to the petitioner. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, reliance by Mr. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner to the decision of Junta Dal V. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors (Supra) is misplaced. In para 154 of the judgement the Supreme Court after relying on its own judgement in the case of State of Haryana V. Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) where the scope of the inherrent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police were laid down was discussed. The said para reads as under :- "the sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercise in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provisions causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution" ( 9 ) IN the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court exhaustively considered the limitation in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. by the High Court with regard to the quashing of proceedings at the stage of FIR. It was opined that the inherent power could be exercised with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Some of. the illustrations laid down by the Apex Court wherein such powers could be exercised are enumerated as under:- " (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted intheir entirety do not prima facie constitue 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 FIR 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 uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commision of any offence and make out a case against the accused. . (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commision of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 made in the FIR or complaint are so absured 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 malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " ( 10 ) THE illustrations though not exhaustive but indicate in what circumstances the Court should exercise its inherent power. The facts alleged by the prosecution in this case are such that prima facie at this stage it cannot be said that no case is made out. In umpteen number of cases, the Supreme Court has opined that. the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. should be exercised sparingly. Apex Court went to the extent of depricating the interference by the High Court at the stage of investigation on the ground that FIR did not disclose any offence. Such approach amounts to investigation by the Court itself which is not permissible. It was so said in the case of Union of India V. Sh. B. R. Bajaj and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 384. Such approach amounts to investigation by the Court itself which is not permissible. It was so said in the case of Union of India V. Sh. B. R. Bajaj and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 384. ( 11 ) TO the same effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. Thirukkural Perumal JT 1995 (3) SC 166, where it was observed that the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint on the basis of evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with petition under Section 482. High Court cannot evaluate such evidence which is yet to be produced before the Trial Court. Quashing of the FIR by the High Court in such circumstances was depricated by the Supreme Court. Similarly in the case of M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. V. Chaitanyakumar and Am. JT 1992 (4) SC 487 it was observed that the investigation is the statutory function of police, superintendence of which vests with the State Government. The High Court, therefore, is not justified without compelling and justifiable reasons to interfere with the same. Supreme Court as early as in 1963 in the case of State of West Bengal V. S. N. Basak AIR 1963 SC 447 held that investigation into cognizable offence cannot be interfered with when no charge has been laid. To the same effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh V. Delhi Admn. 1974 SC 1146. The question was posed whether the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings could be exercised at the stage of investigation by police. The answere was in the negative. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, this Court in the case of Washeshar Nath Chadha V. State DRJ 1992 (23) Short Notes page 39 decided on 10th March,1992, held that High Court cannot interfere in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. in the collection of evidence and arrest even by illegal means. ( 13 ) RELYING on the observations of the Apex Court, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. in the collection of evidence and arrest even by illegal means. ( 13 ) RELYING on the observations of the Apex Court, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. cannot interfere with the investigation at an initial stage particularly when prima facie no case is made out to do so. So long as the investigation is being made independly and the matter is not before the Court, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the investigation. In view of the facts which have come on record, it cannot be said that this is an exceptional circumstance for which this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction as was done in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (Supra ). ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above I am of the considered view that unless exceptional circumstances are brought on record or the case is covered in any of the grounds mentioned by the Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal s case (supra), the High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Petition is accordingly dismissed on this preliminary objection itself being not maintainable as the investigation is at the initial stage and the police is still collecting evidence.