JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No. 761/2007 registered at Police Station-Jhotwara, Jaipur against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being an officer bearer and convener of the 'Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Housing Cooperative Society, Jaipur is taking vital role in allotment of plots situated at Officer Enclave, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara Jaipur. 4. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to allotment of Plot No. 37, which is allotted to one Satya Narayan Sharma and it bears signature of President, convener and its secretary. 5. Satya Narayan Sharma on the basis of Patta issued in his favour filed a civil suit for injunction against the complainant-Surendra Jakhar 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class (East), Jaipur. City, Jaipur. The Addl. Civil Judge on 13.11.2007 after hearing arguments ordered to maintain status quo as exists today. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that since a civil suit is pending consideration before the civil court with regard to same dispute, the FIR lodged by the complainant-Surendra Jakhar is not maintainable. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges that FIR on the ground that from bare perusal of FIR, it is clear that the petitioner has no interest whatsoever in the disputed property. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner, as the Patta was legally issued by the Society and the petitioner in the capacity of convener, signed the allotment letter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC Page 335 , wherein tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for proving that the FIR in question requires interference by this Court as the FIR is false at its face value and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC Page 335 , wherein tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for proving that the FIR in question requires interference by this Court as the FIR is false at its face value and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR is lodged against the petitioner with malafide intention and with an ulterior motive. As per test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , the present case is of such nature, where while exercising power u/s. 482 Cr.PC. this court is required to interfere in the FIR. 9. This Court on 10.12.2007 at the time of issuing notices and admitting the petition, stayed the further proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 761/2007 dated 22.09.2007 registered at P.S. Jhotwara till further order. 10. Since, the matter is already admitted and today the matter comes up for confirmation of ex-parte interim order granted by this Court on 10.12.2007. 11. It is not disputed that one Satya Narayan Sharma has filed a civil suit and obtained interim injunction for maintaining status quo. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is filed against the complainant and the complainant is party in it. The civil court after hearing the complainant, directed to maintain status quo and proceedings before the civil court are still pending. In such circumstances, the complainant simultaneously cannot file a complaint upon which the alleged FIR No. 761/2007 has been registered against the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (Complainant) and learned Public Prosecutor have strongly controverted the submissions made on behalf of petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed details of as many as sixteen cases, which are pending against the petitioner under various D offences. He also shown order dated 11.12.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8179 of 2007, Tanvir Khan v. State . It is submitted that the petitioner moved a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. He also shown order dated 11.12.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8179 of 2007, Tanvir Khan v. State . It is submitted that the petitioner moved a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the nature of the accusation against 5 the petitioner not found it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 14. By showing these documents, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent tried to make out the case to show the conduct of the petitioner that he has not only cheated the respondent-complainant, but also to other people and all the aggrieved persons have lodged FIR against o the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel fQr the respondent in support of his submissions referred judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. B.R. Bajaj & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC Page 1256 . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "8. In the instant case the High Court while interfering at the stage of F.I.R. holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact, took into consideration several other records produced by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Banerjee and also on a letter written by the Director; State Lotteries. o This approach of the High Court, to say the least, to some extent amounts to investigation by the Court whether the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out or not. In the F.I.R. it is clearly mentioned that a false note was recorded by respondent No. 1 with a view to help M/s. Om Prakash & Co. and its sister concerns. It is also mentioned in the 5 FI.R. that the information so far received disclosed that before the agreement dated 07.11.85 was signed between M/s. H.K. Chug & Co. and the Council, M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala sent a telegram and also complaint alleging mal-practices in the awarding of the contract and the same was also sent to the President and Shri B.R. Bajaj. and the Council, M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala sent a telegram and also complaint alleging mal-practices in the awarding of the contract and the same was also sent to the President and Shri B.R. Bajaj. However, o even after receiving such a telegram, Shri B.R. Bajaj did not take any steps to stop the loss to the Council because of his deep involvement in the conspiracy and it is also clearly mentioned that the total loss caused to the Council and gain to the accused persons is to the tune of Rs. 1,43,34,000/- when compared to the offer made by the highest tenderer M/s. Bharat & Co. or at least Rs. 1,13,34,000/- when compared to the next highest tenderer M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala. These are some of the important allegations in the FIR which makes out a cognizable offence at that stage and the registration of an FIR is only the beginning of the investigation. That being the case, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the FIR itself when several aspects of the allegations in the FIR had still to be investigated. The learned Judge of the High Court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence, has taken into consideration several aspects including the guidelines, normal duty of Shri B.R. Bajaj etc. and went further and investigated whether the offences under section 120-B read with Ss. 418, 468 IPC and Section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge has treated the whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of conviction and that should never be the approar" in exercising the inherent power under section 482, Cr.PC. Particularly at the stage of FIR when the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by police. We do not think that in this case we should make a further detailed consideration about the contents of the FIR. We are satisfied that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.PC. accordingly the appeal is allowed. We do not think that in this case we should make a further detailed consideration about the contents of the FIR. We are satisfied that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.PC. accordingly the appeal is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2006(6) SCC Page 736 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for quashing criminal complaint alleging commission of various offences under Penal Code-Disputes arising from breach of contract-Civil remedy available and availed of-Remedy under criminal law, held no barred if the allegations disclose a criminal offence. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that mere pendency of civil suit is not bar to lodge criminal complaint against the petitioner for such offences and also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah & Ors., reported in 2002(9) SCC Page 581 . Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pendency of a civil suit in respect of the matter concerned would not be a bar to resort to criminal proceedings-Criminal Proceedings initiated against the accused for offence under Section 420 IPC, held, were wrongly quashed by the High Court merely on the ground of pendency of a civil suit for specific performance in the matter concerned. 16. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savita v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2006(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 344 : 2005(12) SCC Page 338 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this was too premature a stage for High Court to give such a finding when even the investigation had not started and investigating agency had no occasion to find out whether there was material to file a charge sheet or not. Though finding given by civil court is binding on criminal court, but such consideration to finding of civil court cannot be given by High Court entertaining criminal petition for quashing FIR wherein investigation has not even started. 17. Further referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr., reported in 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 17. Further referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr., reported in 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 147 : 2003(6) SCC Page 195 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grounds for quashing, restated-said powers, held, to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the case of Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. & Ors., reported in 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 85 : 2002(1) SCC Page 555 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because of pendency of civil proceedings between the same parties, even if it be pending in a higher court. 18. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr., reported in 2001(8) SCC Page 654 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quashing of criminal proceedings-sought on the ground of pendency of civil proceedings in the matter concerned-Permissibility-Considerations in quashing criminal proceedings restated -Complainant case alleging forgery of documents and wrongful gain on their basis-Proceedings initiated against accused respondents u/s. 193, 209, 406, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, quashed by the High Court due to the pendency of a civil suit filed by accused disputing genuineness of the documents-Setting aside High Court's impugned judgment and held that mere pendency of civil suit between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. 19. Having heard rival submissions made on behalf of respective parties and upon careful perusal of material placed on record as well as order passed by civil court and judgments referred by the respective parties. As the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. . (supra). 19. Having heard rival submissions made on behalf of respective parties and upon careful perusal of material placed on record as well as order passed by civil court and judgments referred by the respective parties. As the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. . (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down 7 tests, which are reproduced hereunder : (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) Where the allegatio, n the first information report and other materials, if any, accomp, 'ng 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 commission 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 or contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd 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 mala fide 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. 20. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. 20. Thus, in view of tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for quashing any criminal proceeding or FIR, the first and foremost test is as to whether the FIR at its face value is false or not. It is not disputed that the cross FIR(s) have been lodged by the parties regarding preparation of forged documents. It is matter of investigation to find out truth and the truth can only came out after investigation and the investigation is yet not started as this Court vide ex-pane interim order dated 10.12.2007 had stayed the further investigation.In view of ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred by the respective parties, in all cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even the investigation is not started and investigating agency had no occasion to find out whether there was material to file a charge sheet or not. This is premature stage for High Court to give such finding and to interfere with the investigation. Admittedly, the investigation in FIR No. 761/2007 at this stage cannot be stayed in view of settled prepositions of law. This is a fit case where this Court find no merit in the ex-parte interim order granted on 10.12.2007 and same deserves to be rejected. 21. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case this Court is not inclined to continue the ex-parte interim order dated 10.12.2007, on such event, the petitioner may not be arrested during investigation. 22. Having considered the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in case the petitioner cooperate with the investigating agency and present before it along with required documents as and when called, the investigating agency is expected not to arrest the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigating agency and refuse to produce required documents, the police is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of law. In such eventuality the petitioner is at liberty to move regular bail application before the competent court. 23. In case the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigating agency and refuse to produce required documents, the police is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of law. In such eventuality the petitioner is at liberty to move regular bail application before the competent court. 23. In view of aforesaid observations, the ex-pane interim order granted by this Court on 10.12.2007 stands vacated. Prayer for interim relief stands rejected. *******