JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the accused petitioner invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.RC. of this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 257/96 registered at Police Station Dudu Distt. Jaipur under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that his share of agricultural land in dispute was sold to the complainant Hari Narain, Ratan Lal and Kishan Lal through a registered sale deed executed by Raghunath Singh, the natural father of the petitioner on June 10, 1994. The said land was aiready acquired in the year 1988 by the State Government in ceiling Proceedings and the petitioner and his natural father Raghunath Singh cheated the complainant. The Police Station Dudu, on the basis of complaint forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.PC., registered aforesaid FIR No. 257/96. 3. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the petitioner was minor and was adopted by Narain Singh and he did not put his signatures on the sale deed. There is no evidence against him that he was ever benefited by the sale transaction. No case under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out even exfacie from the FIR and the accused petitioner cannot be convicted ultimately on the basis of the said allegations. 4. On the other hand Mr. Praveen Balwada learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor for the State contended that looking to the averments of FIR, powers under section 482 Cr.PC. should not be invoked. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the case diary. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions of Mr. S.K. Jain learned counsel, meticulous analysis of the evidence collected during investigation is necessary. In King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed ( AIR 1945 PC 18 ) the Privy Council propounded that the police investigation cannot be quashed by High Court invoking inherent jurisdiction if it involves appreciation of evidence. 7. In the case on hand the petitioner is named in the FIR along with other accused Raghunath Singh and any observation made by me may also affect the investigation of allegations levelled against Raghunath Singh. Therefore I do not think proper to meticulously analyse the evidence collected during investigation. 7. In the case on hand the petitioner is named in the FIR along with other accused Raghunath Singh and any observation made by me may also affect the investigation of allegations levelled against Raghunath Singh. Therefore I do not think proper to meticulously analyse the evidence collected during investigation. I am thus not inclined to interfere with the investigation. Flow ever, the Investigation Officer is expected to consider the following points : (i) Whether the accused petitioner Jog Raj Singh was benefited by the sale transaction ? (ii) Whether the accused petitioner Jog Raj Singh was present at the time of execution of sale deed ? (iii) With whom the accused petitioner was residing at the time of execution of sale deed ? (iv) Whether on the basis of allegations in the FIR alleged offences are made out against the accused petitioner. (v) What is effect of age of the accused on the allegations levelled against him. 8. The miscellaneous petition stands disposed of as indicated above. *******