ORDER : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. Invoking inherent powers of the Court, accused-petitioners in these quadruple criminal misc. petitions are beseeching annulment of impugned FIRs No. 217/15, 250/15 and 251/ 15 of Police Station Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar. 2. As all these petitions are edificed on identical facts and grounds, arising out of the same alleged dubious land transaction, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 3. In FIR No. 217/15, complainant is Mangilal Bishnoi, Halka Patwari of 23 GB, Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar, whereas in FIR No. 250/15 complainant is Gurjant Singh, and in FIR No. 251/15 complainant is Sukhraj Singh, respectively. 4. Bare necessary facts for the purpose of these petitions are that Narendrajeet Singh, Devendra Singh, Jaideep Singh and Sarvajeet Singh - sons of Raibans Singh, residents of Sri Vijaynagar, submitted an application for making necessary entries in the revenue record on 01.04.2015 before Sub Divisional Officer (Rehabilitation), Sri Ganganagar for land at Stone No. 177/440 and 176/440, measuring 50 bighas, bearing Chak-1 GM, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, by relying on Sanad No. 124 dated 18.09.2014, issued in the name of their mother Smt. Jaswant Kaur. Pursuant thereto, it appears that necessary entries in the revenue records were made. However, being unaware or sceptical about the same, all these incumbents made endeavour to verify the factum of requisite entry in revenue records of the land in their names. Thereupon, in an enquiry, it was revealed that no Sanad was issued in the name of Jaswant Kaur and in fact for the land in question Sanad was issued bearing No. 124 dated 12th of May 2004 in the name of Gopi Ram s/o Shri Ramjas. Therefore, it was unearthed that the so called Sanad No. 124 dated 18th of September 2014, allegedly in the name of Jaswant Kaur, is a spurious document. In the interregnum, part of the said land is alienated by all the four sons of Smt. Jaswant Kaur to the complainants of FIRs No. 250/2015 and 251/2015 respectively. For this entire dubious act of Narendrajeet Singh, Devendra Singh, Jaideep Singh and Sarvajeet Singh - sons of Raibans Singh, definite roles are also assigned to the accused-petitioners Gurmukhdas and Barkat Ali, inasmuch as, all are castigated for preparing forged document and using the same as genuine one, in the subject sale transaction. For this entire dubious act of Narendrajeet Singh, Devendra Singh, Jaideep Singh and Sarvajeet Singh - sons of Raibans Singh, definite roles are also assigned to the accused-petitioners Gurmukhdas and Barkat Ali, inasmuch as, all are castigated for preparing forged document and using the same as genuine one, in the subject sale transaction. In FIR No. 217 of 2015, though the role of accused-petitioners Gurmukhdas and Barkat Ali has not been spelt out but in the remaining two impugned FIRs, i.e., FIR Nos. 250 of 2015 and 251 of 2015, the complainants have clearly attributed criminal delinquency on the part of these accused-petitioners also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.K. Garg, has strenuously urged that a bare reading of FIR No. 217/2015 makes it abundantly clear that no role is assigned to the petitioners for commission of any offence and while assailing the remaining two FIRs bearing No. 250/2015 and 251/2015, learned counsel would contend that a bare reading of these FIRs also reveal that no cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out. Mr. Garg, learned counsel, further submits that the alleged act of forgery and using a forged document as genuine one, is having no nexus whatsoever with the accused-petitioners inasmuch as petitioners are not the beneficiaries of the said sale transaction. Elaborating his submission in this behalf, learned counsel has urged that in these peculiar facts and circumstances it is not possible to establish any nexus of the accused-petitioners with the real beneficiaries of the transaction so as to prima facie indict them for criminal delinquency in the matter. Lastly, learned counsel submits that if the investigation is allowed to be continued in the impugned FIRs, the same would result in serious miscarriage of justice. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that FIR No. 217/2015, lodged by Halka Patwari, has prima facie spelt out preparation of forged Sanad and use of the same as genuine one, coupled with the other two FIRs, makes it abundantly clear that the impugned FIRs disclose commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the FIRs lodged by complainants bearing Nos. 250/2015 and 251/2015 are clear and unequivocal so as to assign definite role to the accused-petitioners in commission of offences, and therefore, interference in all these matters is not warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the FIRs lodged by complainants bearing Nos. 250/2015 and 251/2015 are clear and unequivocal so as to assign definite role to the accused-petitioners in commission of offences, and therefore, interference in all these matters is not warranted. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor submits that investigations in all these matters have been completed and investigating agency has collected prima facie incriminating evidence against the accused-petitioners. He, therefore, submits that no interference in the matter after conclusion of investigation is called for in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on detailed factual report solicited from the SHO concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, while adopting the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, submits that petitioners have not been able to make out a case for quashment of FIRs inasmuch as both the FIRs bearing Nos. 250/2015 and 251/2015 are clearly spelling out cognizable offences committed by petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant has further urged that looking to the seriousness of allegations and the fact that investigation in the matter has been completed, no interference under inherent powers for quashing the FIRs is desirable. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the materials available on record. 9. While it is true that FIR No. 217/2015 lodged by the Halka Patwari discloses commission of cognizable offence by four accused persons, who are sons of Smt. Jaswant Kaur, for preparing forged Sanad and using the same as genuine one to get requisite revenue entries of land entered in their names without attributing any role of the accused-petitioners, but then the two subsequent FIRs No. 250/15 and 251/15 clearly and unequivocally prove nexus of accused-petitioners in the commission of offence. A cumulative reading of all the three FIRs makes it abundantly clear that involvement of the accused-petitioners, in commission of alleged offences for forgery and using a forged document as genuine one, is clearly spelt out. Moreover, the role of both the accused-petitioners in the subsequent sale transaction which was entered into by other accused persons, who are beneficiary of the transaction, is clearly discernible from FIR Nos. 250/2015 and 251/2015. Moreover, the role of both the accused-petitioners in the subsequent sale transaction which was entered into by other accused persons, who are beneficiary of the transaction, is clearly discernible from FIR Nos. 250/2015 and 251/2015. As a matter of fact, complainants in both these FIRs are bonafide purchasers, from whom handsome consideration amount is received by the main accused persons as well as the petitioners, inasmuch as, accused-petitioners have played a pivotal role in the sale transaction as middlemen. It was, in fact, at the behest of accused-petitioners that a proposal was mooted for the sale transaction on behalf of main accused persons and therefore it is rather difficult to fathom that they have not played any active role in commission of the alleged offences. 10. Law governing the provision for quashment of FIR is no more res integra and the Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction is required to exercise such powers with great care and circumspection very sparingly. It is only under exceptional circumstances when the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie disclose commission of criminal offence, or the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, exercise of inherent powers is desirable and not otherwise. I am afraid, in the instant petitions, such situations are not available and consequently it would be inappropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction for quashment of impugned FIRs. 11. My aforesaid view is also fortified by a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], wherein the Court held: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. 103. (7) 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. It is also noteworthy that investigation in the matter is completed and the investigating agency has collected prima facie incriminating evidence against the accused-petitioners for their involvement in commission of aforesaid offences besides other accused. The relevant excerpt from factual report dated 11th December 2016, pertaining to FIR No. 250/2015, in vernacular, reads as under: HINDI 13. Undeniably, this Court cannot interfere in the statutory right of police to investigate the matter where FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence or the investigation discloses involvement of other persons in crimes, even though that source may be the statement of co-accused and the names of some accused persons are surfaced during investigation on the statement of co-accused. Interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers is warranted if it is noticed by the Court that the allegations do not disclose commission of cognizable offence or the power of investigation is being exercised by police mala fide. Sans these situations, which are apparently not traceable in the instant matters, I am not persuaded to exercise inherent powers in adherence of the trite principle that investigation is the stage of crime detection and role of judiciary at that stage is very limited. 14. In totality, I am constrained to observe that lodging of impugned FIRs and subsequent investigation has not resulted in abuse of the process of the Court, nor allowing investigation to reach its logical conclusion would result in miscarriage of justice. 15. Upshot of above discussion is that I find no merit in all these petitions and therefore same are hereby dismissed.