A. H. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition which is filed under section 482 of the code of Criminal procedure, petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside FIR No-146 of 2001 registered at Dani Limda Police Station for the commission of the alleged offences punishable under sections 379, 447, 448, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No-2 against the petitioners. ( 2 ) HAVING heard Mr. H. M. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N. D. Gohil, learned APP for respondent no. 1 - State and Mr. G. T. Dayani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - and on having perusal of the averments made in the petition and the grounds made in the impugned complaint, I am of the opinion that there is a prima facie case against the present petitoners for commission of the crime alleged against them. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners is unable to persuade this court how the complaint does not disclose the prima facie offence against the petitioners. It is true that the petitioners are creditors whereas respondent No. 2 is a debtor as there was outstanding dues of Rs. 3,40,000 - to the petitioners from respondent No. 2 and in that connection one machine Lupagater had already been handed over to the petitioners. The alleged incident has taken place on 10-12-2001 while the petitioners forcibly, with the help of a crime, lifted one another machine in the presence of the watchman. Therefore, according to me, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners for their invovement in the offence alleged against them. ( 3 ) IN the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, 2002 0 AIR (SCW) 286 the supreme Court has said that in a petition filled under section 482 for quashment of the complaint it is not proper for the High court to have a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. ( 4 ) IN the case of S. M. Dutta v. State of gujarat 2001 AIRSCW 3133, the Supreme court has observed that the FIR ought not to be thwerted at initial stage unless the matter does not disclose an offence and the fir should be read as a whole and should be inductive of an offence broadly and not with meticulous accuracy and nicety. ( 5 ) APPLYING the principles enuciated by the Supreme Court in the aforsaid cases to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the present petitioners for commission of the alleged offence for which fir came to be recorded against them. ( 6 ) SEEN in the above context, I do not see any valid reason or justifiable ground to entertain the petition and hence it deserves to be rejected. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and accordingly it is rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief is vacated. ( 8 ) MR. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners urged that ad-interim relief granted by the Court earlier which has remained operative till today may be continued for a further period of four weeks hereof to enable the petitioners to approach higher forum- Mr. Dayani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2- has strongly objected to this request and urged that in view of the fact that FIR came to be filed in the year 2001 and because of the stay granted by this court further investigation has been stayed and therefore the prayer sought for may not be granted. ( 9 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2001 and by virtue of the stay granted by this court further investigation has been stayed and since this court has held that there is a prima facie, case against the petititoners for admmission of the alleged offence, the prayer sought for would run counter to the settled principles of law enunciated by the supreme Court with regard to quashment of the proceedings and hence the prayer cannot be granted and the same is accordigly rejected. .