JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Abdul Hamid with the prayer that FIR No.144/2010 registered at Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur for offence u/Ss.420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, in which he has been made an accused, be quashed and set-aside and this Court may pass any other appropriate order or direction which it deemed fit and just in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that although FIR which has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, enumerates allegations in many of its paras against accused Nos.1 and 3 but no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner as petitioner is neither the office bearer of the Housing Cooperative Society nor he himself has received the amount. The transaction took place between the complainant and other two co-accused i.e. accused Nos.1 and 3 Babulal and Mehfooj, respectively. In fact, agreement was executed between co-accused Babulal and complainant Khalil Ahmed and that cross FIR was also registered against the complainant by co-accused Babulal on account of certain dispute that developed in the course of time. Petitioner has been falsely named as an accused and he is being harassed by the police for no fault of him. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that settled proposition of law is that this Court can interfere to quash the FIR only if contents of the FIR/complaint are accepted in its entirety do not disclose any offence. In the present case, there is name of the petitioner with other two co-accused at number of places in the FIR which then become the matter worth investigation. Whatever material on which petitioner wants to rely, he may produce before the investigating officer, who shall definitely examine role of the other co-accused vis-a-vis that of the petitioner. Matter is still under investigation. It is premature to assume that investigating agency would not look into the material provided by the petitioner. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record and keeping in view the allegation in the first information report, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference by this Court in quashing the FIR. The contents of FIR are not only against the petitioner but also other two co-accused persons. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record and keeping in view the allegation in the first information report, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference by this Court in quashing the FIR. The contents of FIR are not only against the petitioner but also other two co-accused persons. If the assertion of the petitioner is accepted that he has no business transaction with the complainant and such transaction took place between the compliant and other co-accused persons pursuant to the agreement to sale arrived at between them and co-accused Babulal had filed criminal case against the complainant, all this material he should produce before the investigating officer, who shall look into the same by making investigation. 5. This petition therefore dismissed however with the aforesaid observation.Petition dismissed. *******