JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for parties these matters have been heard finally at admission stage. 2. Since both these petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the same F.I.R. No. 21/2005, therefore, both these petitions are being decided by a common order. 3. According to F.I.R., the complainant, the Secretary of the Cooperative Society, claims that the Society had bought 8 bighas 9 biswas agricultural land from the petitioner through agreement to sale, and some amount was paid to them. The land was demarcated into plots, and plots were sold to members of the Society. Subsequently, the petitioners sold the same land to Ram Sahai, Sitaram and Radhy Shyam, and thus have caused wrongful loss to the Society and there is wrongful gain to petitioners. On such allegations the impugned FR has been registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed one, and bare perusal of F.I.R. shows that none of the offences has been committed by any of the petitioners. This is a simple case of breach of contract, and no offence has been committed. They have also submitted that the petitioners have already filed a civil suit for declaration and stay in connection with the disputed property. As such the First Information Report is a clear abuse of process, and when other remedy is available to the Society F.I.R. should not be allowed to continue. Learned Counsel further submitted that when there is efficacious remedy for the grievance of aggrieved party, criminal proceedings on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated categories of case for exercising the powers of extraordinary or inherent of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contents of F.I.R. does disclose cause of action, there are allegations of criminality. The allegation made in F.I.R. if taken as correct, do disclose a commission of cognizable offence, and further evidence has to be collected by the police. Therefore, the F.I.R. should not be quashed. During the course of investigation, the procedure should not be hampered. The conclusion of investigation may positive or negative, this Court is not apprise the evidence or enquire into the matter. Therefore, the F.I.R. should not be quashed. During the course of investigation, the procedure should not be hampered. The conclusion of investigation may positive or negative, this Court is not apprise the evidence or enquire into the matter. When the investigation is going on, it should not be scuffled by inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court should not give a premature decision, when entire facts extremely incomplete. After conclusion of investigation, factual or legal aspect can be seen in their true perspective. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on State of West Bengal v. N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447 , State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, (1992) 1 SCC 222 , Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, (1994) 2 SCC 277 , State of M.P. v. Awad Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691 , State of Punjab v. Subhash Kumar, (2004) 13 SCC 437 , State of Karnataka v. Pasto P. Raju, 2006 AIR SCW 3916 , State of A.P. v. Boyjoori Kamthaiah, 2008 AIR SCW 7860 . 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties, perusing the material available on record, and considering the case law cited at bar, I find that perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose commission of offence, and that factual matrix needs an investigation from the competent authorities. This Court unnecessarily should not interfere with the investigation when it is in progress. 7. The judgment of the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), does not support the case of the petitioners, rather it prohibits this Court from quashing the F.I.R. Since this case does not fall within the categories so formulated by Hon'ble Apex Court, calling for exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 8. This Court should not interfere in the procedure prescribed. It cannot be termed as abuse of process when the investigation is still in progress, and if positive report is submitted before the concerned Court, the accused shall have all opportunities to object the same. This is not a fit case to interfere under, inherent powers of this Court. 9. Consequently, the misc. petitions being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petitions dismissed. *******