Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks to quash and set aside FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2-complainant against the petitioners being C.R. No. I-117 of 2011 registered before Sola Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in short arising from the present petition are that a complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 2-complainant alleging inter alia that the petitioners produced a concocted and forged type copy of FIR being C.R. No. I-139 of 2007 in the proceedings of Cri. Misc. Application Nos. 3436 to 3438 of 2007 filed before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad by the present Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-139 of 2007 registered with Navrangpura Police Station and also in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 filed before this Court by the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for quashing of said FIR and their advocate certified it as true copy. This Court (Coram: Ms. Justice H.N. Devani) vide order dated 23-1-2008 issued rule and granted interim relief. Mr. Ashok G. Hurra, husband of the present Respondent No. 2, thereafter preferred Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 1573 of 2009 in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 praying to punish the guilty persons and learned advocate who filed the petition with typed copy of FIR marked and signed as ‘true copy’ and placed on record of Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 and directing the Registrar General to file complaint before the Magistrate for initiation of prosecution against guilty persons. It was also prayed therein to vacate the interim relief granted in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008. However, this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) vide order dated 10-2-2009 rejected the said application. He thereafter preferred Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 12532 of 2009 in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 for vacating the interim relief granted in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008. However, the said application was disposed of as withdrawn by this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) vide order dated 16-12-2009. Meanwhile, order dated 23-1-2008 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. Appln. Appln. No. 12532 of 2009 in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 for vacating the interim relief granted in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008. However, the said application was disposed of as withdrawn by this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) vide order dated 16-12-2009. Meanwhile, order dated 23-1-2008 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition No. 5315 of 2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26-4-2010 vacated the stay against investigation granted by this Court on 23-1-2008 in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008. He also filed Criminal complaints against the petitioners being Sessions Case Nos. 4 to 6 of 2010 and they are pending before the Sessions Court. He also filed Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 3969 to 3971 of 2007 in the anticipatory bail applications. However, said applications were rejected by the learned City Sessions Judge as Sessions Case Nos. 4 to 6 of 2010 are already registered and are pending. He also filed Special Criminal Appln. No. 2088 of 2010 before this Court for transfer of investigation of C.R. No. I-139 of 2007 from CID (Crime) to CBI. Since due to pendency of said petition before this Court, summary report of Investigating Officer, which was sanctioned by the higher authorities, was not submitted before learned Magistrate but it was submitted to this Court in sealed cover. Although the said petition was pending before this Court, the Respondent No. 2-complainant approached the Director General of Police for transfer of investigation and it was transferred from CID (Crime) to CID (Economic Offence Wing) without the leave of this Court. DGP also directed for institution of fresh FIR with regard to alleged alterations and fabrications of FIR of C.R. No. I-139 of 2007, if found necessary. This is challenged by the Petitioner No. 1 before this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 365 of 2011. In spite of the fact that the said petition is pending before this Court, the present complaint is filed by the complainant without leave of the Court and to harass the petitioners. Hence, the present petition for quashing of the said FIR. 3. When the matter is listed for admission hearing the previous day, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.V. Raju appeared with Mr. Hence, the present petition for quashing of the said FIR. 3. When the matter is listed for admission hearing the previous day, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.V. Raju appeared with Mr. D.K. Puj on behalf of the petitioners, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Y.N. Oza, on behalf of the Respondent No. 2-complainant and they were heard on the point of admission as also on grant of interim relief. 4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju, submitted that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It was filed with an intention to harass the petitioners and also to rope in the advocate, who certified the typed copy of FIR as ‘true copy’ and placed on record before this Court in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 filed by the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 for quashing of FIR being C.R. No. I-139 of 2007 registered with Navrangpura Police Station. He further submitted that since process was issued in the complaint already filed by Mr. Ashok Hurra-husband of the Respondent No. 2-against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, making allegations in which the present Respondent No. 2-complainant was cited as witness, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed applications for quashing of process issued in said Criminal Case Nos. 1107 to 1109 of 2009, however, they were subsequently withdrawn and cases are pending before the competent Court. According to him, allegations in those complaints are identical to the allegations made in the present complaint and, therefore, the second complaint is barred. He further submitted that when the matter was sub-judice before this Court, the Respondent No. 2 approached the Director General of Police and through influence or misrepresentation got the investigation of C.R. No. I-139 of 2007 transferred from CID (Crime) to CID (Economic Offence Wing) and D.G.P. also directed to lodge fresh FIR with regard to alterations and fabrications made by the petitioners in the typed copy of FIR of C. R. No. No. I-139 of 2007 and it is challenged by the present Petitioner No. 1 before this Court by way of Special Criminal Appln. No. 365 of 2011. No. 365 of 2011. Although the said petition is pending before this Court, the Respondent No. 2 filed the present complaint without the permission of the Court and with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that certified copy of FIR was already produced on record and since it was not legible, typed copy of complaint was produced on record and, therefore, if any error was committed in the typed copy of FIR and placed on record before the Court, it could not be said that there was any intention on the part of the petitioners to alter or delete some words from the FIR or that it was with ulterior motive to obtain favourable orders, deletion or alteration was made. According to him, a plain reading of the averments made in the present complaint would go to show that no ingredients of Sections 463-471 of IP Code are made out and as far as other alleged offences are concerned, they are not cognizable offences and, therefore, only N.C. ought to have been registered. Thus, he prayed that petition be admitted and interim relief be granted in favour of the petitioners. He relied on the following decisions: (1) (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and another; (2) (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 429 in the case of Ramesh Dutt and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others; (3) (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 495 in the case of Devendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; and (4) Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 2548 of 1999 decided by this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice C.K. Buch, as he then was) on 24/09/1999. 5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Yatin Oza, on behalf of the Respondent No. 2-complainant submitted that investigation of the case is at a very preliminary stage and hence, in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, power of the Court should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare case and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief and this petition requires to be dismissed at the threshold. He further submitted that there is no bar of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. or the Court is not required to follow the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. as prima facie it is found that tampered typed copy of FIR was prepared and produced on the record of the case and as soon as it came to the knowledge of the Respondent No. 2, complaint was lodged before the Police and, therefore also, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. He also submitted that for quashing the complaint pending before the learned Magistrate Court, the present petitioners approached this Court and very same submissions were made before a Court of coordinate jurisdiction of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi. However, since the Hon’ble Court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it was withdrawn and, therefore, second inning is impermissible. He further submitted that the petitioners could have invited orders from said Court and would have approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submitted that contents of copy of FIR produced before the Sessions Court were different from the contents of copy of FIR produced before the High Court in the quashing petition being Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 which shows the guilty mind of the accused. Reading out the contents of both the FIRs, he submitted that once a document is filed in the proceedings in the Court and thereafter forgery is committed in the typed copy of said document, it becomes a new cause of action and, therefore, though the documents are same, the action with the same documents are different and, hence, for the second action though with the same documents, second complaint can be filed. It was, therefore, urged that no relief be granted and the petition be summarily dismissed. He also relied on the following decisions: (1) (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 251 in the case of M. Narayandas vs. State of Karnataka and others; (2) (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 352 in the case of K. Vengadachalam vs. K.C. Palanisamy and Others; (3) (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 370 in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another; and (4) AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795 in the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others. 6. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari, while adopting the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. 6. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari, while adopting the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Oza, submitted that immediately after lodging the complaint, the petitioners approached this Court and, therefore, the Court should not interfere at this stage especially when the investigation is not yet started. He also submitted that during the course of investigation, if it is found that no offences are made out, Investigating Officer may file appropriate report before the Sessions Court and, hence, he also sought to dismiss the petition at this stage. 7. This Court has gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the complaint filed by the present Respondent No. 2 as well as other documents placed on record by the parties together various orders passed by this Court. 8. This Court has gone through Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 1573 of 2009 filed in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 771 of 2008 filed by Mr. Ashok G. Hurra wherein it was mainly prayed as under: “d. This Hon’ble Court May Kindly Be Pleased To punish the accused guilty persons and Learned Advocate-who filed the petition with Typed Copy of FIR-marked and signed as ‘true copy’-and placed on record of Misc. Cri. App. No. 771 of 2008, all of them having committed offences under Sections 340 and 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191 to 193 of Indian Penal Code thereby directing Registrar General to file complaint before Magistrate having Jurisdiction for initiation of prosecution against all guilty, and to take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint within specified period that may be considered just and fair by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of Public Justice; e. This Hon’ble Court May Kindly Be Pleased To vacate the interim relief granted by order dt.23.01.2008 in Misc. Cr. A. No. 771/2008-granting stay of investigation of FIR I-139 of 2008 pending investigation before C.I.D. (Crime) and be pleased to give direction to CID (Crime) to complete the investigation within specified period as may be deemed just and fair by this Hon’ble Court and place report before this Court;” In the aforesaid petition, following order was passed by this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) vide order dated 10-2-2009 : “1. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have filed frivolous complaint, which is deprecated on earlier occasion. Justice Anant S. Dave) vide order dated 10-2-2009 : “1. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have filed frivolous complaint, which is deprecated on earlier occasion. Only after hearing of the parties and on 15.12.2008, learned Single Judge Mr. D.H. Vaghela has passed following order. “Learned Counsel Ms. Hurra has insisted upon peremptorily fixing the matters for final hearing at an earlier available opportunity on the ground that stay was operating against the respondent. It was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Vimal Patel, appearing for the petitioner, that the original interim relief was granted after hearing the respondent and an earlier application for vacation of the interim relief has also been kept for hearing along with the main application by order dated 01.8.2008. Under the circumstances, learned Counsel agreed to have the main matter finally heard at an earlier opportunity and jointly requested to fix the date of hearing for that purpose. Accordingly, the petitions are ordered to be listed for final hearing on 29.01.2009. “ 2. This Court is ceased with the cases for final hearing of 1993. Even those matters are not being taken up in view of the roster assigned to this Court. 3. No case is made out. Hence, the application is rejected.” 9. It has been vehemently argued by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Oza, that when the aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, interim relief granted by this Court (Coram: Ms. Justice H.N. Devani) vide order dated 23-1-2008 was vacated which shows that when the complainant approached this Court to lodge complaint by the Registrar General of this Court, with ulterior motive to obtain order in favour, alleged forged type copy of complaint has been produced by the petitioners. 10. However, it is required to be noted that although the interim relief was vacated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, no order was passed in reference to the prayers made by the complainant in Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 1573 of 2009 as reproduced hereinabove. 11. It prima facie appears from the complaint in question that allegations are made against the advocate and clerk of the advocate to the effect that they were part of the conspiracy in preparing the alleged forged type copy of FIR. 12. Misc. Appln. No. 1573 of 2009 as reproduced hereinabove. 11. It prima facie appears from the complaint in question that allegations are made against the advocate and clerk of the advocate to the effect that they were part of the conspiracy in preparing the alleged forged type copy of FIR. 12. This Court is aware that only in rarest of the rare case when it is prima facie found that there is abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, Court should use its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In other words, if prima facie ingredients of alleged offences are made out from the complaint itself then, the Court should not interfere during the course of investigation. However, questions as to whether the allegations made in the complaint filed by the husband of the Respondent No. 2 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are identical to the allegations made in the complaint in question or not and also whether any prima facie ingredients of offences are made out or not against the petitioners cannot be decided at this stage as it may prejudice the parties at the time of final hearing of this petition. Therefore, though various decisions were cited by both the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, no opinion is expressed on the same at this stage. However, it is pertinent to note that complaint in question has been filed after a long lapse of time. Looking to the entirety of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. 13. In view of the above, issue Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1-State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Oza, for the Respondent No. 2-complainant waive service of rule. There is no stay over investigation and Investigating Officer is directed to carry out investigation so as to reach at the root of the offence. However, the petitioners will not be arrested without the permission of the Court. Direct service is permitted. 14. Office is directed to list this matter on a separate board for final hearing on 16th June, 2011. P P P P P