Judgment D.H. Waghela, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the complaint registered as Criminal Case No. 23 of 2005 wherein an order dated 10.02.2005 was made for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC Pursuant to that order, an FIR was registered as M. Case No. 3 of 2005 in Pradyumannagar Police Station of Rajkot on 13.02.2005. Petitioners are the accused persons in the complaint and Respondent No. 1 is the original complainant. The substance of the complaint is that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC by forging and registering a document for offering valuable land of the petitioner as security to a bank and obtained loan of Rs. 97 lakhs. 2. According to the petition, Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 have availed credit facility of Rs. 97 lakhs under different heads from Vijaya Bank in the year 1994 and Petitioners No. 4 and 5 along with Respondent No. 1 were guarantors for the credit facility. The petitioners failed to repay the dues along with interest and hence, after notice dated 21.01.1999, Original Application No. 294 of 1999 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. That application was allowed on 25.6.2000 entitling the bank to recover, jointly and severally, sum of Rs. 1,40,67,078.03 ps. On 02.07.2004, the complainant filed an application praying to set aside the decree and condone the delay, alleging fraud and forgery committed by the petitioners. That application was rejected on 28.01.2005. Then, the complaint registered as Criminal Case No. 23 of 2005 was filed and the petitioners came to know about it only in January, 2008 when the police came at the place of Petitioner No. 4. It is alleged in the petition that all the dues of the bank were settled and, therefore, nothing remained payable by the petitioners and criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with an ulterior motive for the purpose of extortion and harassment. It is also averred that the complainant has already disposed of the land in question and was not required to pay any amount on behalf of the petitioners. In view of these averments and allegations, the petition was entertained and ad interim relief staying further investigation was granted by order dated 20.02.2008. 3. It is also averred that the complainant has already disposed of the land in question and was not required to pay any amount on behalf of the petitioners. In view of these averments and allegations, the petition was entertained and ad interim relief staying further investigation was granted by order dated 20.02.2008. 3. Affidavits of the original complainant and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajkot have been filed and Records & Proceedings of original Criminal Case No. 23 of 2005 have been called for and perused which revealed the shocking state of affairs as under. 3.1. The complainant, aged abut 80, is a Non Resident Indian living away from Rajkot where she had bought land admeasuring 2857.03 sq. yds. in the year 1967. The petitioners are alleged to have forged and concocted a duplicate document of title deed in respect of the same land and submitted such document for mortgage by depositing of the title deed. After offering the land as security, she was also made a guarantor with incorrect address, due to which, notices of Debts Recovery Tribunal never reached her. Upon one such notice being attached at the premises of the plot in June 2004, the complainant came to know about the alleged scandal and the husband of the petitioner had to come to India for necessary enquiries, according to the complaint. It is also alleged that one Hasmukh N. Kotak, accused No. 6, who is not a party herein, has committed many such misdeeds in complicity with managers of the bank and the accused persons are habitual offenders with close relation with high level officers. The complaint contains details of how the offences are alleged to have been committed and why they were required to be properly investigated. It is further stated by the complainant in her affidavit that, since the petitioners had deliberately given her wrong address, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad proceeded ex parte and decree was passed in which she was made liable to satisfy the decree as guarantor though, in fact, she never stood as guarantor. She did not know any of the petitioners and none of them were her relatives or friends and there was no reason for her to stand as their guarantor. She did not know any of the petitioners and none of them were her relatives or friends and there was no reason for her to stand as their guarantor. Moreover, she was in the U.S.A. between 23.07.1995 to 17.04.1996 when the false and forged documents executed by the petitioners on 07.11.1995, 23.01.1996 and 12.01.1996 were submitted by the petitioners. It is also alleged by her that the petitioners are very resourceful and influential and have managed to stall the investigation despite number of orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. 4. It is, inter alia, stated by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajkot in his affidavit that, pursuant to the criminal case, investigation has been carried on and letters have been written to Vijaya Bank, Sub Registrar’s office at Rajkot and section officer of Revenue Department, Gandhinagar for copies of the documents. On 21.01.2008, the Police Inspector had written to the Assistant Sub Inspector to arrest the accused persons from Jasdan, district Rajkot, but the police officer who went to arrest them at Jasdan could not find them. Then, the Police Inspector had informed the Police Sub Inspector to go to Surat and investigate the matter and he recorded several statements. Again, the Police Sub Inspector was sent to Jasdan, but the accused persons were not found till ex parte ad interim relief, as aforesaid, was granted by this Court. 5. According to the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by Petitioner No. 3, none of the petitioners were ever absconding and they have always been available at the address given in the memo of petition. 6. According to the record of Criminal Case No. 23 of 2005 pending before learned J.M.F.C., Rajkot, first order dated 10.02.2005 required submission of the report of investigation within 30 days. That having been not done, a reminder was sent by the Court, in reply to which, extension for one month was requested by the Police Sub Inspector of concerned police station. Objecting to that, it was stated on behalf of the complainant that the complainant being an N.R.I. was having to stay in Rajkot and return to Ahmedabad pursuant to the complaint and the accused persons were wealthy and influential due to which investigation was delayed and not properly done. Objecting to that, it was stated on behalf of the complainant that the complainant being an N.R.I. was having to stay in Rajkot and return to Ahmedabad pursuant to the complaint and the accused persons were wealthy and influential due to which investigation was delayed and not properly done. The Police Sub Inspector had stated in his application for extension that he was busy with investigation of 20 other cases, with bandobast on account of Taziya, examinations, bandh call and public meetings. Besides that, he had duties of night patrolling for ten days in a month and duties in three shifts of preparing papers at the hospital where cases of casualties were coming. He was not provided any Government vehicle and hence he could not complete the investigation in time. Learned J.M.F.C., by order dated 21.03.2005, granted extension of 30 days and directed the Police Inspector to supervise the investigation so as to submit the report within time which was extended. The investigation was carried on in similar fashion with similar orders till 20.06.2006 when the Police Sub Inspector submitted progress report, inter alia, stating that correspondence was carried on with Vijaya Bank and the investigation was being carried on. The original complainant appeared to have continued to pursue the matter and, by application dated 05.04.2007, prayed for an order for proper investigation in view of doubtful investigation and behaviour of the officer. Learned J.M.F.C. ordered the investigating officer to remain personally present on 10.04.2007 with progress reports of the investigation. He did not remain present and an order was passed to endeavour to complete the investigation within 30 days under the guidance of superior officer. Again, on 12.09.2007, the Police Sub- Inspector sought extension of time mainly on the ground that documents were to be recovered from the bank. Thereafter, the matter appears to have been pursued by the Principal District Judge till the order granting ex parte interim relief was made and then, by letter dated 29.3.2008, it was, inter alia, submitted that the accused persons were absconding, while offences were partly investigated. 7. Thereafter, the matter appears to have been pursued by the Principal District Judge till the order granting ex parte interim relief was made and then, by letter dated 29.3.2008, it was, inter alia, submitted that the accused persons were absconding, while offences were partly investigated. 7. It is absolutely clear from the above record of facts and documents that the investigating officers concerned, under the supervision of their higher officers, had, all throughout for the period of more than three years, been dragging their feet and keeping away from the accused persons, while carrying on the so-called investigation into irrelevant aspects like ownership and title deeds of the complainant herself and transactions subsequent to commission of the alleged offences. Even judicial orders for proper and prompt investigation were ignored or disregarded while the accused persons were enjoying the liberties and had in fact settled the dispute with the bank by paying total Rs. 80 lakhs in instalments against the decretal liability of Rs. 1,40,57,078.03 ps. along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the bank’s application. Thus, the accused persons had already earned straight benefit of more than rupees one crore, besides availing the facility for several years of loan from the bank. If the allegations in the complaint were true, it was a sophisticated financial scam in which white collar executives, businessmen and other influential persons could be involved. But the investigating agency could do little more than writing letters for documents from the bank and the complainant could do nothing more than making applications before learned J.M.F.C. and defend herself against the decree of a huge amount and defend her case before this Court incurring unnecessary expenses. 8. The petition was mainly pressed, all throughout, on untenable grounds that the complainant had not incurred any loss and already sold the property to third parties and hence the criminal case was required to be quashed for being an attempt at extortion and harassment of the petitioners, while the investigation had, in any case, not made any worthwhile progress. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the investigation has been influenced or paralysed at the instance of the petitioners and other accused persons who may be involved in the alleged scam. 9. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the investigation has been influenced or paralysed at the instance of the petitioners and other accused persons who may be involved in the alleged scam. 9. By express provisions of Chapter XII of the CrPC, ample powers are conferred upon the police to properly and expeditiously investigate cognizable cases and, by the provisions of Section 173 of CrPC, duty is cast to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. If the accused persons or any one else is not found to be involved in any offence or the offence as alleged is not made out, the investigating agency could and ought to have filed such report so as to relieve the parties concerned, or permit them to proceed further. But by keeping the investigation pending for a long time, only the purposes and interest of accused persons could be served insofar as evidence may be destroyed or lost and witnesses or complainant may die or lose interest and faith in the meantime. Therefore, it is the fundamental duty of the investigating agency to properly and promptly investigate and submit its report within a reasonable time, in accordance with the express provisions of CrPC. The State and the investigating agency have failed in discharge of their duty, in the facts of the present case, and has consequently appeared to have helped the petitioners. The powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC are required to be rarely exercised for giving effect to an order under the CrPC or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or to secure the ends of justice. The above record of facts makes this case a proper one for exercising the inherent powers in support of proper and prompt investigation as also for mitigating the grievances of the original complainant. The petitioners are found and held to have themselves abused the process of law and hence they are not entitled to any relief in equity or in law. 10. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed with the directions as under: (i) The Petitioners shall each pay to Respondent No. 1, by way of costs, Rs. 10,000/- within a period of one month; (ii) The Respondent No. 2, State of Gujarat, shall pay to Respondent No. 1, by way of costs, Rs. 10. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed with the directions as under: (i) The Petitioners shall each pay to Respondent No. 1, by way of costs, Rs. 10,000/- within a period of one month; (ii) The Respondent No. 2, State of Gujarat, shall pay to Respondent No. 1, by way of costs, Rs. 50,000/- with liberty to recover such amount from such of the officers of the police department who have, by acts of commission, omission or supervision, not abided by the orders of learned J.M.F.C., Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2005 and not complied with the provisions of CrPC, particularly the provisions of Section 173 of CrPC. Such recovery shall be in addition to and not in substitution of other departmental actions which may be found to be required after preliminary enquiry by the Secretary of Home Department of the Government of Gujarat; (iii) A copy of this judgment shall be served upon the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, for taking such remedial actions as may be deemed proper to prevent recurrence of such poor investigation and procrastination as described hereinabove; (iv) In the peculiar facts of the case, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajkot in charge of investigation into M. Case No. 3 of 2005 is directed to submit report of investigation before this Court on or before 16.01.2009, for further orders, if required. Petition accordingly stands dismissed, notice is discharged and ad interim relief granted earlier is vacated. It shall be listed before this Court on 16.01.2009 for the purpose of submission of the report and further orders, if required, as aforesaid.