JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner for quashment of F.I.R. No. 877/2007 registered at Police Station, Jhotwara, Jaipur against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 467, 468 and 120:B of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.10.2006 the petitioner No. 1 Mohammed Iqbal Khan purchased a Plot No. 54 from the 'Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur and Patta was issued in his favour. The complainant-respondent No. 2 wanted to forcibly dispossess the petitioner on the basis of forged Patta. 4. The petitioner filed a civil suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur for permanent injunction, in which the civil Court issued an order of interim injunction in favour of petitioners on 7.2.2007. 5. The petitioners also filed F.I.R. bringing into the notice of the police about the forged patta. In the F.I.R. it was specifically mentioned that in respect of Plot No. 54 he paid money and Patta was issued in his favour and he is having possession over the same. 6. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The A.C.J.M. sent the matter for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of which an F.I.R. came to be lodged against the petitioners. 7. 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 F.I.R. lodged by the complainant-Jagdish Prasad Kadwa is not maintainable. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges that F.I.R. on the ground that from bare perusal of F.I.R., it is dear 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. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC Page 335 : 1993 Cr. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC Page 335 : 1993 Cr. L.R. (SC) 92 , wherein tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for proving that the F.I.R. in question requires interference by the Court as the F.I.R. is false at its face value and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. It is also contended on behalf of petitioner that the F.L.R. is lodged against the petitioner with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive. As per lest 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is require to interfere in the F.I.R. 10. Today the matter comes upon the prayer for interim relief. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 (Complainant) and learned Public Prosecutor have strongly controverted the submissions made on behalf of petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed details of as many as sixteen cases, which are pending against the petitioner under various offences. He also shown order dated 11.12.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8179/2007, Tanvir Khan v. State . It is submitted that the petitioner No. 2 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 the petitioner not found it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Learned counsel for 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 1256 : 1994 Cr.L.R. (SC) 66 . 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 F.I.R. did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact, took into consideration several other records produced by respondents Nos. 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 F.I.R. 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. 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 F.I.R. that the information so far received disclosed that before the agreement dated 7.11.1985 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. However, 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. 1,13,34,000/- when compared to the offer made by the highest tenderer M/s. Bharat & Co. or at least Rs. 1,34,34,000/- when compared to the next highest tenderer M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala. These are some of the important allegations in the F.I.R. which makes out a cognizable offence at that stage and the registration of an F.I.R. is only the beginning of the investigation. That being the case, the High Court has grossly, erred in quashing the F.I.R. itself when several aspects of the allegations in the F.I.R. had still to be investigated. The learned Judge of the High Court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not disclose any offence, has taken into consideration several aspects including the guidelines, normal duty of Shri B.R. Bajaj etc. The learned Judge of the High Court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 Sections 418, 468 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge has treated as whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of conviction and that should never be the approach in exercising the inherent however under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Particularly at the stage of F.I.R. when the same discloses commission of an cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by Police. We do not think that in this case be should make a further detailed consideration about the contents of the F.I.R. We are satisfied that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the F.I.R. under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. N.P.P.C. India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 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 Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharamaiah & Ors., reported in (2002) 9 SCC 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 I.P.C., 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. 15. 15. Simiar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Savita v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2005) 12 SCC 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 F.I.R. wherein investigation has not even started. 16. 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) 6 SCC 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 judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 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. 17. 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 654 . Wherein the 1 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 -Complaint case alleging forgery of documents and wrongful gain on their basis -Proceedings initiated against accused respondents under Sections 193, 209, 406, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., 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.17A. 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 : (l) 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 allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 proceedings 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. 18. (7) Where a criminal proceedings 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. 18. Thus, in view of tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for quashing any criminal proceedings or F.I.R., the first and foremost test is as to whether the F.I.R. at its face value is false or not. It is not disputed that the cross F.I.R(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 come out after investigation. 19. 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. Admitedly, the investigation in F.I.R. No. 877/2007 at this stage cannot be stayed in view of settled preposition of law. 20. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case this Court is not inclined to grant interim order, on such event, the petitioner may not be arrested during investigation. 21. 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. 22. Prayer for interim relief stands rejected.Bail application dismissed. *******