Judgment 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2 bearing Crime No.42 of 2011 dt.1.4.2011 at Police Station, Hingna, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 447 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the first informant Ranubai Vijay Meshram made a complaint against Shri Wasudeo Chhatumal Jhamnani and Ghanshyam Marotrao Choudhary informing the police that father of the first informant by name Shri Sham Jairam Dupare owned ancestral land bearing Khasra No.72 with area 5.29 Hectare (13 acres) situated at mouza Thana Dongara. According to the first informant, Sugandhabai Dupare along with the first informant had instituted Civil Suit No.925 of 1998 on 28.2.1998 for partition and possession of the said land. The suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. The said Court passed an order dt.21.11.2006 declaring shares. Accordingly, the Collector, Nagpur was required to partition the property. Pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court, the Tahsildar, Hingna had directed the revenue entry in the name of sharers in the 7/12 extract of the land. It is alleged that accused Wasudeo Jhamnani had entered into criminal conspiracy with Ghanshyam Choudhary. Pursuant to that criminal conspiracy between them, they had misused the names of heirs Kamlabai Dupare, Malinibai Dupare, Bhanudas Dupare, Manohar Meshram and prepared bogus documents with a view to grab the land and encroached upon the land when, in fact, no portion of the land was sold to Wasudeo Chhatumal Jhamnani nor any agreement to sell was entered into. Thus, the first informant, suspecting that somebody, by making false signatures on the basis of bogus documents and cheating the complainant, attempted to get the land transferred illegally. Thus, the First Information Report was lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 447 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the contention on behalf of the applicant that holding of the land was converted to Class I from Class II under the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur dt.22.5.2001 passed in Revenue Case No.545/LND-18/1999-2000. Thus, the First Information Report was lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 447 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the contention on behalf of the applicant that holding of the land was converted to Class I from Class II under the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur dt.22.5.2001 passed in Revenue Case No.545/LND-18/1999-2000. Ghanshyam Choudhary as a Power of Attorney holder had executed a registered sale deed of the land admeasuring 12.86 acres in favour of the applicant which was registered at Sr.No.172, Book No.1 with the Sub-Registrar of Documents, Hingna, District Nagpur on 27.7.2001. The applicant claims possession on the basis of said documents. According to the applicant, legal heirs had executed consent letter sworn before the Executive Magistrate on 6.6.2003 and thereafter, pursuant to N.A. order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, dt. 3.1.2003 passed in Revenue Case No.78/NAP-34/2001-02, the applicant prepared a layout plan to divide the land into various plots and sold plots to various purchasers under different sale deeds during the period from 2004 to 2007. Respondent no.2 with Sugandabai Dupare had filed Civil Suit No.925 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur, in which respondent no.2 with Sugandabai was granted 1/7th share in the land. Tahsildar by order dt.14.9.2010 had directed land to be divided into seven portions and mutation was accordingly made in the name of seven persons in the revenue record. The applicant had challenged the Tahsildar's order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur in Revenue Appeal No.4/SRV-43/2010-2011. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur allowed that appeal and the order mutating names of persons including Non-Applicant No.2 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tahsildar, Hingna for fresh inquiry according to law. Further, according to the applicant, Non-Applicant No.2 had filed Civil Suit against present applicant and Ghanshyam Choudhary for declaration that sale deed dt.27.7.2001 executed in favour of the applicant is illegal, null and void. Special Civil Suit No.619 of 2009 is, thus, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. It is submitted that Non-Applicant No.2 is, therefore, no longer the owner of the suit land. Special Civil Suit No.619 of 2009 is, thus, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. It is submitted that Non-Applicant No.2 is, therefore, no longer the owner of the suit land. According to the applicant, signatories of the documents in the nature of Power of Attorney as also vendors, who allegedly sold the property to present applicant, did not lodge any F.I.R. According to the applicant, the F.I.R. lodged against him is mala fide with a view to harass him. The applicant claims that he is bona fide purchaser and further contended that there is a civil dispute and, therefore, inherent powers u/s. 482 be used for to quash and set aside the F.I.R. 3. The learned A.P.P. on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant is facing serious accusations punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 447 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusations against him is that forged documents were prepared and he has cheated on that basis. The investigating agency collected the documents and also recorded statements of witnesses. According to the investigating agency, Kamlabai Dupare stated that she never executed any Power of Attorney nor executed any sale deed alleging that Wasudeo, present applicant and Ghanshyam Choudhary have prepared forged documents and got the sale deed executed in illegal manner without knowledge/consent of the lawful owners only with a view to grab the property. Further, according to the respondent/State, alternate efficacious remedy is available for the applicant to file an application for discharge in the trial Court. 4. The learned A.P.P. referred to the ruling in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava reported in 2006 CRI. L. J. 4050 in order to argue that inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash F.I.R. or proceedings only when allegations constituted no offence at all or when there is no legal evidence. It is submitted that u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained since it is the function of the trial Judge. The learned A.P.P. submitted that accusations are very serious as fraud and cheating has been alleged against the present applicant and Ghanshyam Choudhary. The learned A.P.P. submitted that accusations are very serious as fraud and cheating has been alleged against the present applicant and Ghanshyam Choudhary. He, therefore, submitted that the petition ought to be dismissed. 5. Hearing the submissions and looking to the nature of seriousness of accusations as also submissions made on behalf of the State that the investigating agency has collected documentary evidence which, according to the first informant, were forged documents prepared with a view to cheat owner of the land on the basis of forged and false documents and the aspect that the witnesses also stated that they never executed power of attorney or sale deed in favour of the applicant, I think that the applicant do have alternate efficacious remedy to apply for discharge when charge sheeted. When applicant is facing serious accusations into which investigation has also been done in detail, it would not be just and proper to use inherent powers for to quash the F.I.R. Object of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to use inherent powers where it is absolutely essential and such powers are to be used sparingly with circumspection and in a rarest of the rare case. Inherent powers cannot be exercised so as to repress prosecution or to stall the prosecution when investigating agency has entered into detailed investigation into serious accusations pursuant to the F.I.R. It is an object of law to see that the real culprits shall be brought to book and punished according to law. In the instant matter, name of the present applicant was mentioned in the F.I.R. and serious allegations have been made against him and according to witness Kamla, she never executed Power of Attorney in favour of Ghanshyam Choudhary. Said Ghanshyam Choudhary was arrested and police custody remand was also granted as against him on 18.5.2011. If, according to the applicant, he had acquired the land in question with clear title in accordance with law, he may apply for discharge on that ground. Said Ghanshyam Choudhary was arrested and police custody remand was also granted as against him on 18.5.2011. If, according to the applicant, he had acquired the land in question with clear title in accordance with law, he may apply for discharge on that ground. However, when according to material witnesses, whose statements have been recorded u/s.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Power of Attorney was executed nor any agreement to sell was executed in favour of Vasudeo Jhamnani and it is alleged that he, along with Ghanshaym Choudhary, had entered into criminal conspiracy with a view to cheat lawful owner of the land on the basis of forged and bogus documents, serious charges are needed to be taken to their logical end of finding the truth. These observations do not mean that the applicant cannot apply for discharge from the case on merits. He can avail of such effective alternative remedy, if he so desires, in the trial Court. Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find that this is a fit case for to exercise inherent powers u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If F.I.R. in such a case is quashed, it may frustrate the prosecution at its preliminary stage. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed.