JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 440/2015 registered at Police Station Roopbas Distt. Bharatpur. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the Counsel of Complainant-Respondent No. 2. On the instruction of his client, he had filed four cases under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which is established from the order-sheets. A false case has been registered against him. 3. It is also contended that prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., petitioner had lodged the complaint before the Magistrate. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted report. From perusal of the report, it is revealed that Police has come to the conclusion that petitioner who is an Advocate took an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant party on the pretext that he would get the possession of the farm delivered to the complainant. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Petitioner had obtained a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant on the pretext that he will get the possession of agricultural land delivered to the complainant, when the receipts were demanded, petitioner gave in writing in front of the Panch that he would refund the amount. 7. From the report submitted by the Police, it is revealed that petitioner even did not attend the proceedings in the cases filed by him and the cases were dismissed for non-prosecution. 8. Apex Court in "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2018(3) SCC Page 106 : 2018(2) RLW 1165 (SC)" has held that where F.I.R. discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. Apex Court observed that once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 9. Apex Court observed that once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 9. Since, F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence and Police has also come to the conclusion that offence is made out, I am not inclined to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 440/2015. 10. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Stay application stands disposed.