JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the investigation in F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 5/2011, dated 4.1.2011, registered at Police Station Arian, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Manager (Vyavasthapak) in the year 1970 on the ground that he had been working with the Saptiliya Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Village Sandoliya, Ajmer for two months and had done a condemnable job. Subsequently, his appointment was continued and even presently he is working as a Manager of the said Samiti. During the course of his working, he issued a notice to the respondent No. 2, Rameshwar Lal, informing him that a loan of Rs. 8,063/- was taken by him, which has not been repaid. Therefore, he would be removed from the post of the President of the Board of Governors and in future, the meetings of the Samiti will be held in his absence. According to the learned counsel, it is this notice, which created animosity between the petitioner and Rameshwar Lal. Aggrieved by the said notice, Rameshwar Lal had filed a notice under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 ('the Act', for short) before the Sub-Registrar Sahkari Samitis, Ajmer. The matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.10.2009, the Arbitral Tribunal cancelled the notice and permitted the respondent No. 2 to resume the work on the post of President of the Board of Governors. Aggrieved by the said order, in turn, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 105 of the Act. The said appeal is still pending. 3. However, in order to wreak personal vengeance upon the petitioner, respondent No. 2 submitted a criminal complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, wherein he alleged that in order to seek employment, the petitioner had submitted a mark-sheet of High School issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, wherein his date of birth was shown as 5.8.1951. However, when the record of the school was called for, and certificate of the Principal of the school was sought, it was revealed that the petitioner's date of birth, in fact, happens to be 5.8.1943. However, when the record of the school was called for, and certificate of the Principal of the school was sought, it was revealed that the petitioner's date of birth, in fact, happens to be 5.8.1943. According to the respondent No. 2, there is a difference of eight years between the date of birth shown in the school record and the date of birth shown in the petitioner's High School mark-sheet. It is upon this allegation and upon the complaint that the police has registered the F.I.R. for the aforementioned offences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court :firstly, the F.I.R. has been lodged only in order to wreak personal vengeance upon the petitioner. Thus, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 . Secondly, according to the Rules of Samiti, there is no limit with regard to the age. Thirdly, both the appointment and the continuation of his holding the post were not based on his age. Fourthly, by continuing to work on the post of Manager and while continuing to do an excellent job, the petitioner is neither causing any wrongful loss to anyone, nor is causing wrongful gain to him. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are missing. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the F.I.R. as well as the other documents submitted by the petitioner. 6. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that the jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while dealing with a F.I.R., is an extremely limited one. Although it is true that in the case of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a F.I.R. were filed to wreak person vengeance, this Court should interfere with the F.I.R. However, subsequently, in catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely because a F.I.R. has been filed with a mala fide intention, it does not empower this Court to interfere with the F.I.R. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention that the present F.I.R. has been filed only because of personal animosity between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner cannot he accepted at this moment. 7. 7. The issue, that has been raised, is whether any forgery or cheating has been committed by the petitioner in order to continue to stay on his post ? This issue can be decided only by the Investigation Agency by carrying out a thorough investigation. Therefore, it is too early for this Court to interfere and to prevent the police from carrying out a thorough investigation. Since there are allegations of forgery and of cheating, it is for the police to decide whether the allegations are borne out or not. Of course, the Investigating Agency is expected to carry out a fearless and a fair investigation. According to the petitioner, the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan does show his date of birth as 5.8.1951, therefore, it is for the Investigating Agency to consider the said certificate and to examine the petitioner's exact date of birth. 8. This Court is certainly not inclined to interfere with the F.I.R. or with the investigation therein. However, this Court directs the Investigating Agency to carry out an impartial investigation and to look into any document that might to be placed before it by the petitioner. 9. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******