JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Pandya waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 2 and learned Advocate Mr. K.L. Pandya waives service of notice rule for respondent No. 1. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D K Puj, for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Maulik J Pandya for respondent No. 2 whereas learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for respondent No. 1-State. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein has filed one complaint before Naroda Police Station which is registered as I Cr. No. 412 of 2000 on 29.08.2000 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The sum and substance of the complaint by respondent No. 1 against the present petitioner is to the effect that since complainant and petitioner are having family relations and since complainant has trusted the petitioner, the petitioner has forged several documents including negotiable instruments like cheques and thereby cheated the complainant by siphoning off an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- from him. It would be relevant to recollect here that even petitioner has filed similar complaint with Ellisbridge Police Station which is registered as I CR. No. 811 of 1999 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, wherein charge-sheet is filed on 13.07.2000. Therefore, one thing is certain that after filing the charge-sheet in a complaint filed by the present petitioner against the respondent No. 2 herein, the respondent No. 2, as a counter blast of such charge-sheet and complaint against him, filed one complaint before Naroda Police Station, details of which are recorded herein above. The details of both the complaints runs into number of pages because practically the complaint is civil in nature in as much as since both the side are relatives of each other, they have trusted each other and entered into several monetary transactions for purchasing valuable securities like equity shares, etc,. However, at present all such details are not much material for the simple reason that the investigating agency has already investigated the allegations of both the complaint and filed a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 for the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 4. However, at present all such details are not much material for the simple reason that the investigating agency has already investigated the allegations of both the complaint and filed a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 for the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 4. At present we are concerned with an order dated 05.03.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 18 of Ahmedabad below 'B' Summary, filed by the investigating agency with reference to I CR No. 412 of 2000 registered with Naroda Police Station by respondent No. 2. Such summary report is also bulky in nature, but sum and substance of the report of the investigating agency is to the effect that respondent No. 2 has filed such complaint only because charge-sheet was filed against him in a complaint lodged by the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by such order, when respondent No. 2 has objected such summary report, by impugned order dated 05.03.2016 the learned Trial Court has directed the investigating officer to investigate further. Such order was passed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If we peruse such impugned order, it becomes clear that after recording the history of dispute between the parties, the learned Trial Court has opined that investigating officer has not investigated particular issues and therefore 'B' Summary of prosecution cannot be allowed and hence, directed the investigating officer to inquire further. When such order was challenged by the petitioner, by order dated 23.03.2016 the coordinate bench of this Court has while issuing notice to the respondents, directed the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. Such direction remained operative, however, by an order dated 01.09.2016, it was clarified to the parties and to the investigating officer that by an order dated 23.03.2016, the only direction to the investigating officer is not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and thereby investigation was not stayed. Therefore, investigating agency was free to carry out further investigation. Pursuant to such clarity, the investigating agency has collected relevant documents from FSL also and after completing their investigation as per impugned order, they have filed a report dated 13.10.2016 which is forwarded to learned APP and it is taken on record with opinion of handwriting expert, since the basic allegation in the complaint is regarding forgery of the documents by the petitioner. 5. 5. The perusal of such report dated 12.11.2001 by the handwriting expert and report dated 13.10.2016 by the Investigating Officer, now it becomes clear that even FSL could not definitely opine that whether particular signatures are written or not written by the writer of specimen signatures and natural writings provided to it. Whereas, by its report dated 13.10.2016, now the investigating officer has also, after examining the report of the FSL and other evidences, stated that there is no evidence to prove that an amount of Rs. 4,20,000 was paid by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner for investment in fixed deposit. It is reiterated by the investigating agency that since charge-sheet is filed with reference to I CR. No. 811 of 1999 registered with Ellisbridge Police Station against respondent No. 2 i.e. complainant in the present case, the complainant has filed such complaint without evidence. In view of such clarity and after perusing the entire available record, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to confirm that petitioner has forged any documents or that respondent has paid some amount for investment only and not for commercial transaction of valuable securities like equity shares, etc,. If it is so, then there is no reason or substance to continue such proceeding any further. However, though I have perused the entire record, I am restricting myself to discuss the factual details because of the pendency of one criminal complaint against respondent No. 2; since discussion of factual merits and scrutiny of documents and its discussion may otherwise prejudice his defence. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that, if at all, there is cheating by the present petitioner, respondent No. 2-complainant may have a right to agitate and claim his amount in appropriate civil proceedings, though practically limitation of filing such proceeding has come to an end. It can also not be ignored that respondent No. 2-complainant has already agitated the issue before the Company Law Board, but the Company Law Board has also concluded that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has committed any forgery or cheating or siphoned away any amount as alleged by the respondent No. 2. Instead of filing civil suit, when respondent No. 2 has approached Company Law Board, it becomes clear that the dispute is with reference to the transaction and valuation of valuable security. Instead of filing civil suit, when respondent No. 2 has approached Company Law Board, it becomes clear that the dispute is with reference to the transaction and valuation of valuable security. It is well known that prices of valuable securities, particularly equity shares of different companies are vulnerable and it is subject to market risks and therefore, if at all there is loss in certain transactions, such loss cannot be attributed to loss by cheating, more particularly, in absence of specific evidence to that effect and more particularly, when both the parties are relatives of each other and when they have trusted each other for all such transactions. It cannot be ignored that as per criminal law jurisprudence, for convicting any person there is need of cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt and for initiating any criminal proceedings there must be some prima facie evidence to show that some offence has been committed with clear intention and manner. Therefore in absence of any such evidence, there is no reason to continue the proceedings. It cannot be ignored that by impugned order practically further investigation was allowed whereas by interim order of this Court the only restriction was regarding restraining the respondents in taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, and therefore, now when investigating agency has practically complied with the impugned order by completing the investigation and thereafter when it is revealed that there is no evidence against the petitioner, practically there remains nothing but to put an end to a litigation which is pending for the last sixteen years for no valid reason. 6. Therefore, though facts are quite clear and simple, respondent have tried their level best to drag this matter. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya, has argued in addition to what is argued by learned advocate Ms. SR Shah that pursuant to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused has no right to be heard till charge-sheet is filed and that since further investigation is completed this petition has become infructuous and cause or right to file petition has come to an end and therefore, such report dated 13.10.2016 is to be dealt with by the Metropolitan Magistrate only and therefore he has requested to dismiss this revision. I do not find any substance in any of such submissions for the simple reason that, so far as, right to challenge the further investigation is concerned, it is absolute right of the accused to challenge such order because atleast first summary report is in his favor and more particularly, when he has already lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 2 for his mis-deeds for which charge-sheet is already filed. Therefore, when there is clear case of counter blast by present respondent No. 2, it cannot be said that petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order. So far as status of the petition after inquiry report is concerned now when it is clear on record that there is no evidence against the petitioner, there is no reason to remand back the matter to the Magistrate's Court to pass some order so as to invite multiple litigations more particularly, when petitioner has already prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order so also the complaint. 7. It is made clear that since the dispute is civil in nature, respondent No. 2 i.e. the complainant herein being accused in complaint filed by the present petitioner, would get a chance to cross-examine the present petitioner in criminal trial against him wherein he would get a chance to prove his case that in fact present petitioner has committed any offence as alleged by the respondent in present case. In that case, respondent No. 2 can initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed as prayed for. Whereby impugned order dated 05.03.2016 for further investigation with reference to I CR No. 412 of 2000 registered with Naroda Police Station, so also such complaint itself is quashed and set aside as prayed for. The petition is allowed to that extent. Rule is made absolute.