ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash FIR No. 14 dated 22.01.2014 registered under Sections 408, 420 & 120B IPC in Police Station Haroli Distt. Una (H.P.) and to quash consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.4 Una (H.P.). Brief facts of the case: 2. It is alleged that Sh. Nanak Chand petitioner Secretary of Agricultural Cooperative Society Bhadsali took principal loan amount of Rs.2 lac (Two lac) from the society in his name in the year 2004 but did not return loan amount. It is alleged that amount of due interest became Rs.73,320/- (Seventy three thousand three hundred twenty). It is alleged that in the year 2008 Central Government scheme came relating to waiving off loan of farmers which fall under the provisions of the scheme. It is alleged that case of petitioner did not fall under the scheme and petitioner waived off his loan amounting to Rs.2,73,320/- (Two lac seventy three thousand three hundred twenty) by way of tampering with society record. It is further alleged that petitioner committed tampering in the pro note of loan. It is further alleged that loan was obtained for domestic expenditure however in the pro note same was tampered. It is alleged that petitioner had deposited the amount on 1.11.2013 again in the society. It is alleged that charge sheet already stood filed in criminal competent Court of law. It is alleged that petitioner has committed serious criminal offence by way of tampering record of society by way of misusing his official position as Secretary of the society. 3. Response filed on behalf of non-petitioners No.1 to 3. Court perused response carefully. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether FIR No.14 dated 22.01.2014 registered under Sections 408, 420 & 120B IPC and consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.4 Una (H.P.) are liable to be quashed as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. 5. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether FIR No.14 dated 22.01.2014 registered under Sections 408, 420 & 120B IPC and consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.4 Una (H.P.) are liable to be quashed as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that inquiry already conducted under the provisions of Section 67 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1968 and FIR No.14 dated 22.01.2014 is not maintainable on the concept of double jeopardy and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that offence under Section 67 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1968 and offence under Sections 408, 420 and 120B IPC are two independent distinct offences. It is held that simultaneous proceedings under distinct offence can be initiated in accordance with law relating to same facts of the case. See AIR 1961 SC 578 title State of Bombay Vs. S.L. Apte and another. See AIR 1954 SC 375 title S.A. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India. See AIR 1953 SC 325 title Maqbool Hussain Vs. State of Bombay. See 2012 (7) SCC 621 title Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another. See AIR 2015 SC 75 title State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has repaid the loan amount and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that petitioner cannot be exonerated from criminal liability qua criminal offence allegedly committed earlier simply on the ground that petitioner has repaid the loan amount subsequently after commission of criminal offence. See 2016 (1) SCC 389 title CBI Vs. Maninder Singh. 8. In the present case charge-sheet under Sections 408, 420 & 120B IPC is filed before criminal Court in the month of December 2014 against accused and case is listed for consideration upon charge by learned Trial Court. It is well settled law that after filing of charge-sheet FIR cannot be quashed because after filing charge sheet in competent criminal Court FIR is culminated into charge-sheet. It is well settled law that after filing of charge-sheet FIR cannot be quashed because after filing charge sheet in competent criminal Court FIR is culminated into charge-sheet. It is also well settled law that High Court power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare case with circumspection. It is also well settled law that normal process of criminal trial should not be cut short in a casual manner. See 1995(2) SCC 449 title State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See 1992 Supplement (1) SCC 335 title State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. See 2015(2) Himachal Law Reporter 1095 title Nancy Bhatt and another Vs. State of H.P. & another. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any tampering in the loan pro note as alleged by the prosecution and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Whether petitioner committed tampering in the loan pro note or not is complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings upon complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Issue of absence of mens rea or actus reus will be decided by the learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings upon issue of absence of mens rea or actus reus at this stage of the case. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 10. In view of my findings on point No.1 above petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 20.09.2016. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Cr.MMO No.128/2015 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.