JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed with a prayer to quash the FIR registered by the Dispur Police Station being No. 1833/2015 under Section 420/406 IPC. 2. Notice issued to the respondent No. 2 has not yet been served. 3. I have heard the learned Additional PP, Assam, Mr. P S Lahkar and the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. I have also perused the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. 4. The respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR, marked as Annexure-1 of this proceeding, alleging that the respondent No. 2 took Rs. 1 crore from her for investment in his business which she paid to him on good faith as they were having very good family relation since about 30 years. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid amount was handed over to the respondent No. 2 in good faith and the respondent No. 2 assured that he would return the money within 1 year and within the month of February, 2012. 5. While the respondent No. 2 sent her son to remind the petitioner for returning the money, the petitioner expressed his inability to return the money and assured that money would be returned within next 2 months. Then the respondent No. 2 herself met the petitioner and the petitioner on this or that pretext kept on delaying the payment of the money given to him by her. Thereafter from 15.3.2015 onwards, on different dates, he issued cheques for about Rs. 80 lakhs and the same were bounced. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued before this court that the FIR should be quashed particularly on two grounds. First, the FIR has been registered under Section 406/420 IPC, as these two provisions cannot go together; Second, since the petitioner issued cheques which were bounced, the case, at best, could have been under the Negotiable Instrument Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP, Assam has submitted that this is the initial stage of the case and the police should be allowed to investigate with the case to find out the truth. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the State respondent No. 1 and that of the petitioner. 9. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP, Assam has submitted that this is the initial stage of the case and the police should be allowed to investigate with the case to find out the truth. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the State respondent No. 1 and that of the petitioner. 9. There are catena of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that investigation being the statutory duty of the police, it should be allowed to take place and otherwise the process would be nipped in the bud. 10. In the instant proceeding, it is found that the respondent No. 2 handed over Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner and thereby put him in the domain of the said amount. In such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma Vs. Monica reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 383, has held that quashment was not warranted. On the other hand, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashanta Bharti -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) Supreme Court Cases 293 “truthfulness of falsity of the allegations, essentially pertains to the realm of evidence and the same cannot be pre-judged at this initial stage.” 11. In view of the above position of law, this court is of the view that interference with the investigation of the case, at this stage, would be improper. Therefore, quashment of the FIR involved in this proceeding is not warranted. 12. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed.