JUDGMENT : By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) To quash and set aside an FIR being RC0292016A0016 registered with CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar at Annexure-A to this petition and to pass all incidental and consequential orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court in the interest of the petitioner. (b) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this application, to stay further proceedings in connection with the FIR being RC029201A0016 registered with CBI/ACB/ Gandhinagar at Annexure-A hereto. (c) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court." 2. The First Information Report lodged by the CBI against the writ-applicant dated 20th December 2016 is extracted hereunder: "O/o Deputy/Director Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-2, Surat, Gujarat No. Surat/DDIT-2/KMB/CBI/Comp./2424 To The Head of Branch, CBI, Gandhinagar Subject: Complaint related to recovery of high volume of high denomination new currency notes. Sir, Kishor Mangalji Bhajiawala and his family constituting of his wife – Kamla Kishor Bhajiawala, Sons-Jignesh Kishor Bhajiawala and Vilas Kishor Bhajiawala are in the business of money lending. The assessee started his career with a snack corner about two decades back. The following persons file their return from the Bhajiawala family: Sr. No. Name of the assessee PAN 1 Kishorbhai Mangaljibhai Bhajiawala ABOPB8708M 2 Kamlaben Kishorbhai Bhajiawala AEKPB3732Q 3 Sonal Kishorbhai Bhajiawala AEZPB4321C 4 Jignesh Kishorbhai Bhajiawala ABOPB8707E 5 Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiawala AEJPB1315C 6 Vilas Kishorbhai Bhajiawala ABAPB3171E 7 Jasmine Kishorbhai Bhajiawala AFYPB3864L 8 Jignesh Kishorbhai Bhajiawala HUF AACHJ5976L 9 Vilas Kishorbhai Bhajiawala HUF AAEHV2621L On the basis of reliable information that this family has converted a huge amount of its unaccounted money post demonetization into new currency and other valuables, two business premises namely 40-41, Kamal, Gayatri Nagar Society-1, Udhnagam, Surat, which is also their residence and shop namely KK Bhajiawala, adjacent to Jay Metal, Road No.9, Udhna Udyognagar, Surat of this family were covered u/s.133A of the I.T. Act on 13/12/2016. From the residence total cash of Rs.14,66,665/- (consisting of Rs.1198000/- in new denomination currency notes and Rs.2,68,665/- in old denomination currency notes) and from shop total cash of Rs.10,29,200/- (consisting of Rs.4,32,000/- in new denomination currency notes and Rs.5,97,200/- in old denomination currency notes) were recovered. Besides these two locker keys were also found at the shop premises. From the residence total cash of Rs.14,66,665/- (consisting of Rs.1198000/- in new denomination currency notes and Rs.2,68,665/- in old denomination currency notes) and from shop total cash of Rs.10,29,200/- (consisting of Rs.4,32,000/- in new denomination currency notes and Rs.5,97,200/- in old denomination currency notes) were recovered. Besides these two locker keys were also found at the shop premises. Therefore, the proceedings were converted into search proceedings u/s.132 of the I.T. Act on 13/12/2016. During verification with Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank Limited, Udhna Udyogneger Branch and analysis of Locker attendance register and corresponding CCTV footage, it is found that Jignesh Kishorbhai Bhajiawala is using some other lockers which are not in his name or where he is not authorized signatory. It was found that several lockers were hired by the assessee family on benami names to stash its assets. Several of the related accounts were also found to be having cash deposits post demonetization. As the number of benami lockers operated by Jignesh Bhajiawala, the business affairs of the Bank also were need to be examined more closely, thus the Bank branch was also covered u/s.33A of the I.T. Act. During the survey of the bank, it was observed that one Locker No.1550 maintained with Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd, Udhna Udyognagar, Surat, is in name of Hitesh Chandulal Rughani and Damyanti Chandulal Rughai but, operated by Jignesh Kishor Bhajiawala. In KYC Documents, address of both the persons are mentioned as Raghukul Nagar, Talij, Vasai, Thane and Room No. 4, Jivdani Chawl, Mahavishnu Mandir Road, Mahajan Vadi, Mira Gothan, Thane, Maharashtra. As per Bank records this locker was last operated on 23/11/16 between 4:00 to 4:05 pm. However as per CCTV footage Jignesh Kishor Bhajiawala was at Locker room at the aforementioned time and no entry related with any locker wherein Jignesh Kishor Bhajiawala was co-holder or authorized signatory, was found. When he was confronted with these facts, he accepted that he operated this locker. Based on above findings the locker was searched on 14/12/2016 and Rs.97,84,000 in new denomination currency (2000) was found. All the new currency notes (2000) found from this locker were seized after inventory of same was prepared with note number Rs.4,32,000 in new denomination currency (2000) was found at premise, K.K. Bhajiawala, Adjacent to Jay Mental, Road No. 9, Udhna Udyognagar, Surat which was also seized and after inventory of same was prepared with note number. All the new currency notes (2000) found from this locker were seized after inventory of same was prepared with note number Rs.4,32,000 in new denomination currency (2000) was found at premise, K.K. Bhajiawala, Adjacent to Jay Mental, Road No. 9, Udhna Udyognagar, Surat which was also seized and after inventory of same was prepared with note number. Rs.11,98,000 in new denomination currency (2000) found at premise, 40-41, “Kamal” Gayatri Society-1, Udhna Gam, Surat was not seized as it was revealed that the family had withdrawn Rs.25,22,000/- from 16 accounts maintained with HDFC bank, 13 accounts with Bank of Baroda and 27 accounts with Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank, in the names of family members and HUF. It indicates that either he has converted old high denomination notes from the black market or he has got new denomination note from different bank(s). Senior Manager, Mr. Pankaj Bhatt, Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd, Udhna Udyognagar, Surat has tendered during his statement on oath u/s 131(1A) that his bank has exchanged the OHD of Rs.8,00,000/- on 12/11/2016, 13/12/2016 and 14/12/2016. Out of this most of exchange of OHD was made by Bhajiawala based on ID proof of various persons submitted by Jignesh Bhajiawala. Details of same are as under: Date Total No. of persons submitted exchange form for Rs. 4000 Total No. of persons for whom exchange form submitted by Jignesh Bhajiawala New denomination notes given to Bhajiawala family based on exchange form produced by Jignesh Bhajiawala Total Amount in Rs. 12/11/2016 25 25 50 1,00,000 13/11/2016 79 50 100 2,00,000 14/11/2016 108 100 200 4,00,000 Total 212 175 350 7,00,000 Preliminary examination of the family has revealed that Sh. Kishorbhai Mangalbhai Bhajiawala were mainly active in the money lending business. Their wives are only showing rental and agricultural income in their Income tax returns. As mentioned above, a total seizure of Rs.1,02,16,000/- in new high denomination currency notes has been seized, it shows that Sh. Kishorbhai Mangalbhai Bhajiawala and his two sons Jignesh Kishorbhai Bhajiawala and Vilas Kishorbhai has amassed new denomination notes through collusion with bank Officials, by impersonating, forgery and using forged document, committed fraud to get new denomination note with the collusion of bank employees of Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank, Udhna Udyognagar Branch, Surat, other unknown public sector and private sector bank employees and private persons. The aforesaid seized new denomination currency has been deposited in the Bank on 17/12/2016. The aforesaid seized new denomination currency has been deposited in the Bank on 17/12/2016. However, the inventory of new denomination currency which was prepared during search, is with this office. This information is submitted for suitable legal and penal action as per law. I have been authorized by the competent authority to file this complaint. Yours faithfully, (Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav) Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-2, Surat." 3. Thus, the FIR has been lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant vehemently submitted that even if the entire case put up by the CBI in the FIR is believed or accepted to be true, no offence could be said to have been made out. According to Mr. Pandya, none of the ingredients to constitute any offence under the IPC or Corruption Act are spelt out. The argument proceeds on the footing that the amount of rupees one crore and odd may be an unaccounted one. But, as regards the same, it is for the Income Tax department to look into and take appropriate steps. 5. The CBI could not have lodged an FIR with regard to collecting new denomination notes from the bank by surrendering the demonetized old currency notes. It is submitted that there was no cheating with any person, much less, the bank. It is submitted that there was no forgery committed at the time when the notes were being exchanged. 6. Mr. Pandya submitted that no penalty as such has been prescribed for illegal exchange of demonetized old currency notes with the new currency notes at the bank even if the amount involved is huge. Mr. Pandya submitted that an individual was entitled to receive Rs.4000.00 in new currency notes in exchange of the demonetized old currency notes. If the writ-applicant was successful in getting exchanged the demonetized old currency notes worth rupees crore and odd with the new currency notes, the same by itself would not constitute any offence. Mr. Pandya invited my attention to the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Act, 1978. If the writ-applicant was successful in getting exchanged the demonetized old currency notes worth rupees crore and odd with the new currency notes, the same by itself would not constitute any offence. Mr. Pandya invited my attention to the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Act, 1978. This Act of 1978 was enacted to provide in the public interest for the demonetization of certain high denomination bank notes and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Mr. Pandya invited my attention to Section 10, which provided for penalties. Section 10 of the Act, 1978, reads as under : "10. Penalties.- (1) If any bank fails to prepare and present within the time and in the manner provided by section 5 any return referred to in that section, or presents any return under that section which is false in any material particular, the manager or other person in charge of the bank shall, unless he proves that the failure took place, or the false return was presented, without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the same, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) Whoever knowingly makes in any declaration under section 7 any statement which is false or only partially true or which he does not believe to be true or contravences any provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. (3) An officer of a scheduled bank who makes payment out of the amount, being the exchange value of a high denomination bank note credited under sub-section (4) of section 7 to an account maintained with such bank shall unless such account is an account which has been opened after proper introduction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 7. The whole idea in relying upon Section 10 of the Act, 1978, is to show that when there was demonetization in the year 1978, an Act was enacted, which provided for penalties if there was any irregularity or illegality in the exchange of the notes. No such penalty has been prescribed or laid down so far as the demonetization of 2016 is concerned. 8. No such penalty has been prescribed or laid down so far as the demonetization of 2016 is concerned. 8. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Pandya prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 9. Mr. Pandya placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) in the case of Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 , and (ii) in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009)8 SCC 751 . 10. Both these judgments have been relied upon in support of the submission that no case of forgery is made out. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. R.C. Kodekar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBI. Mr. Kodekar submitted that the FIR is being investigated. The investigation is at a very crucial stage. The case is not as simple as sought to be projected by the writ-applicant. According to Mr. Kodekar, a huge fraud was committed in collusion and connivance with the bank officers for the purpose of getting exchanged the demonetized old currency notes worth crore of rupees with the new currency notes. Mr. Kodekar submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are quite eloquent and the same constitutes more than a prima facie case. 11. Mr. Kodekar submitted that the writ-applicant was found to be operating a bank locker which, in fact, was not in his name. If a bank locker is not in his name, then he could not have operated the same. The bank locker was searched and the new denomination currency notes (2000) worth Rs.97,84,000.00 were recovered and seized in accordance with law. 12. Mr. Kodekar relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli and others, (2016)3 SCC 788 . The above referred judgment has been relied upon by Mr. Kodekar to fortify his submission that a prima facie case is made out even with regard to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the bank officials are involved in the alleged offence. 13. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Kodekar prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 14. Kodekar to fortify his submission that a prima facie case is made out even with regard to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the bank officials are involved in the alleged offence. 13. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Kodekar prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the FIR should be quashed at this stage. 15. It has been rightly submitted by Mr. Kodekar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBI that ordinarily the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a settled law by a catena of judgments that if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious. 16. The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the First Information Report is now well settled. It is not necessary for me to delve deep there into as the propositions of law have been stated by the Supreme Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009)1 SCC 516 , in the following terms : "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue." Yet again in Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2009)4 SCC 443, the Supreme Court stated the law thus : "11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the complaint petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence." 17. Having regard to the allegations levelled in the FIR, I am of the view that more than a prima facie case is made out to permit the CBI to carry out the investigation in accordance with law. It is too early for this court to say, whether any forgery was committed at the time of the commission of the offence or not. 18. The matter requires thorough investigation. The two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon are not helpful to the applicant in any manner. I should not interfere at this stage and quash the FIR. 19. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected.