ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and learned Counsel for respondent 6. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the F.I.R. (First Information Report) in Crime No. 134 of 2012, dated 13-11-2012 of Market Police Station, Bidar, in which he has been shown as one of the accused. 2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that: A person by name Nagappa (respondent 6) lodged a complaint stating that his father has three sons by name Narasappa, Nagappa (complainant) and Shivagond, Their mother Ambawwa was aged about 75 years as on the date of the complaint. His family had 5 acres of land and the said land was sold by them and have got distributed the amount amongst themselves. Thereafter, the brother of the complainant by name Narasappa had been to Hyderabad and remaining two persons were residing together. They purchased in the year 2002 jointly 10 acres 9 guntas of land and further brother of the complainant-Shivagond also purchased a plot measuring 40 x 60 feet in Naubad, Bidar. They further stated that in the year 2003 their father died and his brother Shivagond also died in the year 2009. His brother Shivagond's wife Chinnamma also died in the month of November 2009. The said brother and brother's wife of the complainant died without any issues. Therefore, the complainant and his mother had become the legal representatives of the deceased brother of the complainant. After the death of his brother, the complainant and his mother have made an application to the Tahsildar for change of the revenue entries into their names. Then they came to know that one Mohd. Riyaz and Ravi Swamy have created documents in respect of the properties of the brother of the complainant by creating a gift deed in favour of one Prabhakar S/o. Ramayya Mailpur and got the said deed registered and also created affidavit of Chinnamma with the help of Ravi Swamy and his brother, a Medical Officer (i.e. petitioner herein) making allegations that the said document and the affidavit of Chinnamma has been created and the petitioner also contributed to the said fraud played by said Ravi Swamy and Mohd. Riyaz and others. It is also further alleged that the documents have been created only after the death of the said Chinnamma. Riyaz and others. It is also further alleged that the documents have been created only after the death of the said Chinnamma. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is a practicing Doctor. There are certain allegations made against the brother of the petitioner by name Ravi Swamy, because of that reason only the name of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. During discharge of his duties, as a Doctor, he has granted permission to the Notary to get the signature of the patient i.e., Chinnmma by certifying that the said lady was under the treatment of the petitioner and that the said lady was in fit condition. Looking to the above said allegations made in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the said affidavit and other documents have been created by the Ravi Swamy and others and this petitioner has also contributed to the said fraud and forgery played by the Ravi Swamy and Mohd. Riyaz by certifying the said Chinnamma as fit person to execute the affidavit. Therefore, the complaint lodged was registered for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1183 : 2012 Cri. L.J. 4610 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "........... 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1183 : 2012 Cri. L.J. 4610 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "........... Panel Advocate of Bank (respondent) sought to be implicated in said conspiracy on basis of legal advice given by him i.e., alleged false opinion about ownership of properties against which loans were given--Absence of evidence of abetting or aiding of conspiracy to defraud Bank-respondent's name not mentioned in F.I.R. but charge-sheet showing him as an accused for giving false legal opinion as Bank's Panel Advocate, but statements of witnesses not making specific reference to respondent's role in conspiracy--Held, liability of Advocate who gave a legal opinion would arise only when such Advocate could be shown to have been an active participant in a plan or conspiracy to defraud the Bank--In present case, there was no evidence to prove respondent was abetting or aiding original conspirators--Thus, respondent cannot be charged for said conspiracy to defraud Bank along with other conspirators--High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings, upheld--Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 107 to 109, 419, 409, 420, 467, 468 and471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)." 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also drawn my attention to another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another 2012 DGLS (Soft.) 561. In this case, some of the Branch Managers, Chief Managers and Senior Managers of a Bank were made as accused persons, with regard to the renewal of the fixed deposits making allegations that they have cheated the person who have kept the fixed deposits in the Bank. In this case, some of the Branch Managers, Chief Managers and Senior Managers of a Bank were made as accused persons, with regard to the renewal of the fixed deposits making allegations that they have cheated the person who have kept the fixed deposits in the Bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B and 420 - Cheating with criminal conspiracy--Renewal of Fixed Deposit from joint names to single name--Charges against Managers of Banks--Mere holding of the office of Chief Manager and Senior Manager of the concerned Branch of the Canara Bank, by itself, will not make the accused-appellants liable unless the positive role of either of the appellants in the renewal of the FDs in the sole name of accused Anita Mehra or in the encashment of one of the FDs (FD No. 22/91) by the aforesaid accused is disclosed--Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet or in any of the materials collected in the course of investigation any positive role of either of the appellants, i.e., G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora has been disclosed in the matter of renewal and encashment of the fixed deposits--A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiry--It would not be permissible in law to permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope and expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the accused--Criminal proceedings against them not permissible." In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Bearing in mind the above said principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, now the question remains for consideration is: "Whether at the initial stage, F.I.R. itself can be quashed in this case on facts?" 6. In the above said two decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an opportunity to go through the entire charge-sheet papers and also materials collected by the police during the course of investigation. 7. The learned Counsel also drawn my attention to Para 15 of the said decision in Satish Mehra's case that: "15. In the above said two decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an opportunity to go through the entire charge-sheet papers and also materials collected by the police during the course of investigation. 7. The learned Counsel also drawn my attention to Para 15 of the said decision in Satish Mehra's case that: "15. .....However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceedings after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused." 8. Of course, this Court has got ample powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings even at a relatively advanced stage, subject to certain riders. It is worth to note here certain guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 : 1992 Cri. L.J. 527 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426. The guidelines which are necessary for disposal of this case are extracted as under: (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence any make out a case against the accused. (iii) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (iii) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (iv) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (v) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, the Court must come to the conclusion that even on plain meaningful reading and understanding of the F.I.R. and the complaint, it does not disclose any offence being committed or the allegations made in the complaint or in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence so that the police can investigate into any of the offences. If the F.I.R. and the complaint are translated into evidence that would not disclose any of the allegations against a person in order to proceed against him. Further if there is any legal bar for the police to investigate into the matter and lastly by means of sterling materials the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint are with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, even at the initial stages, F.I.R. can be quashed. 10. There is absolutely no grumble so far as these principles are concerned. But, I would like to once again repeat the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said Satish Mehra's case. The magnitude of the case can be ascertained by the Court only after the charge-sheet is filed, because, it goes without saying that, if the allegations are there is the F.I.R. and complaint, whether those allegations are true or false cannot be given finding by the Court at the threshold itself. The truth or falsity of the complaint or F.I.R. has to be investigated by the police. The truth or falsity of the complaint or F.I.R. has to be investigated by the police. The Court also cannot imagine what materials the police may collect during the course of investigation in order to unearth the truth on the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R. Therefore, in various number of cases, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Courts should be very cautious at the time of quashing of the F.I.R. because quashing of the F.I.R. creates a far-reaching consequences because if once the F.I.R. is quashed, the entire allegations made against the person will be washed off and there cannot be any progress of that matter. Therefore, Court should give opportunity to the police and to the complainant to establish the allegations made in the F.I.R. and complaint. Before virtually acquitting the petitioner without there being a trial, the Court should be doubly cautious while quashing the F.I.R. 11. Bearing in mind, the above principles, let me come back to the F.I.R. As I have already narrated, as per the facts in the F.I.R., it is the allegation that one Riyaz Ahmed, Ravi Swamy and petitioner (brother of Ravi Swamy) have hatched conspiracy among themselves in order to defraud the rights of the complainant after the death of his brother and brother's wife. In that connection, the petitioner also given his contribution to the fraud. It is alleged that fake affidavit has been created after death of said lady in order to commit such offences against the complainant. When such allegations are specifically made, whether actually this petitioner has contributed anything to the said fraud and forgery whether knowingly or by means of exercising his powers as a professional, he has issued such permission or he has any connection with the other accused persons to defraud the rights of the complainant. All these factors have to be thrashed out during the course of investigation. 12. As I have already stated, this Court cannot draw inferences only on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. by giving imaginary grounds or reasons for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. There must be sterling materials so that the Court can conclusively draw inference that F.I.R. was lodged only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. When such materials are not available before the Court, it may not be safe to quash the F.I.R. at the threshold. When such materials are not available before the Court, it may not be safe to quash the F.I.R. at the threshold. Ultimately the purpose of investigation is only to find out the truth in the allegations made against the petitioner. If the investigation is permitted, it would not cause any inconvenience or injustice to any of the parties. Ultimately, the Court can decide after the entire investigation is done and if any charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken against the petitioner without any basis. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, at this stage, I do not find any strong grounds for quashing the F.I.R. itself. 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the mother of the complainant and the other purchasers of the properties are fighting out their remedies in the Civil Court also. Therefore, it is purely a civil matter and given color of the criminal case and false case has been foisted against the petitioner. This ground is also not available to the petitioner as he is not a party to the civil proceedings, as could be seen from the copy of plaint produced before the Court. However, pendency of the civil suit also can be taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court, if any charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken without any basis, if he is made as an accused in the said case. With these observations, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.