JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition u /s. 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioners Jinendra Kumar, Smt. Savita Dosi and Smt. Santa.I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.Facts may be narrated in brief. A partnership deed was executed in between Sampat Raj and petitioners on 23.4.1985. Later on a lease deed was executed in between RIICO Ltd. Pali and the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2. The partnership did not work well. Sampat Raj broke away and severed his relations with the partnership firm and retired w.e.f. 1.1.1987. He thereafter started hatching a conspiracy, ill will and had a sense of revenge. He, therefore, filed a complaint on 1.12.1989 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in which the main thrust was that initial lease deed executed in between Sampat Raj, Jinendra and Sarita was of course signed and executed by Sampat Raj, Jinendra but the thumb impression of Sarita was fictitiously given by one Savita. Therefore, Sampat Raj wanted to initiate proceedings under sections 468, 467 and 471 IPC against the petitioners. Complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate u /s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police thoroughly investigated and submitted final report. The Investigating Officer was thereafter changed and new investigating officer took over charge. Learned Magistrate sent back final report for further investigation. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and prosecution applied for cancellation. Therefore, the petitioners rushed to this Court to quash the FIR and complaint as well as to quash the notices issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bail for cancellation of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR does not show any criminal liability of the petitioners. He submitted that the offence under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not made out as there was no wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anybody. He submitted that the mala fides cannot be rooted out and, therefore, FIR as well as all proceedings thereafter should be quashed. 2. He submitted that the offence under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not made out as there was no wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anybody. He submitted that the mala fides cannot be rooted out and, therefore, FIR as well as all proceedings thereafter should be quashed. 2. On the other hand, learned PP and the learned counsel for the complainant have contended that the matter is being investigated and this Court should not interfere u /s. 482 Cr.P.C. They have submitted that in case the police again comes to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioners final report may again be submitted and the Magistrate having jurisdiction may grant it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 and submitted that when no injury to person deceived is caused, accused cannot be held guilty for offences under section 467 and 468 IPC. He also cited Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1997(7) SC 99, wherein the ingredients of Section 471, 465 and 417 were considered and it was held that the delivery of forged letters did not cause any wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anyone and so act of appellant could not be done dishonestly. It has bfen further observed in this citation that when basic ingredients of fraudulent acts are missing, charge under section 471 r/w section 465 IPC was totally misplaced. He also relied on Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 523 in which Dr. Dutt, as alleged, was falsely posing an expert and was deposing about matters which were material to the result of the trial. He had a document to support his claim should occasion arise. He produced the document, although asked to do so, intending that the presiding Judge may form an erroneous opinion about him and the relevancy of his evidence. The conduct of Dr. Dutt involved neither a gain to any person nor loss to another. He was asked to produce the diploma in Court and he did. It was a matter of some doubt whether he could be said to have used the diploma because he did not voluntarily bring the diploma to Court. Such a user was not contemplated by Section 471 IPC. He was asked to produce the diploma in Court and he did. It was a matter of some doubt whether he could be said to have used the diploma because he did not voluntarily bring the diploma to Court. Such a user was not contemplated by Section 471 IPC. His intention was not to cause anyone to act to his disadvantage because he did not bring the diploma voluntarily but under order of the court. Though he might have intended a deception, he did not intend defrauding. His conduct come within Section 471 IPC. 4. These citations related to the cases in which the convictions were done after recording of evidence. 5. So according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, who relied on the above authorities, the main ingredients of these offences is that there should be some wrongful gain or wrongful loss to somebody. According to him in the present case it did not happen. So according to him no criminal case is made out. He also cited State of UP through CBI, SPE, Lucknow & Anr. v. R.K. Srivastava & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2222 wherein the FIR on its face value did not constitute any offence and criminal proceedings were instituted on its basis. It was held that it was an abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, the FIR was held liable to be quashed. But in a later judgment State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, reported in 1995 SCC 387 it has been held that the High Court's power to quash FIR and criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions. It was held that the High Court was not justified in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of allegations made in the FIR or complaint on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation. Thereafter in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. 61 and Ruyan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has sat certain guidelines according to which it is only in very rare cases that the proceedings can be quashed. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly the investigation is pending. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly the investigation is pending. Police has once submitted final report but the learned Magistrate has sent back case to the police for further investigation and the police has neither submitted challan nor submitted another final report and the investigation is still pending. In view of all these facts, it appears that the petition is, to some extent, pre mature. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that there is any abuse of process of law and consequently the petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******