JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Choksi for learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha for the respondent No.1 and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent No.2 waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-102 of 2017 registered at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3. Learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami appearing for the applicants has submitted that the dispute is of a civil in nature and has been given the colour of criminal act. He has submitted that the applicants have not committed any forgery and they have not created any rights on the forged documents since they are the owners of the disputed land. He has submitted that the right of the ownership of the land in question is pending before the Civil Court, hence, the F.I.R. requires to be quashed. 3.1 He has further invited attention of this Court to the conditions of the agreement to sale dated 24.07.1986 and has submitted that since the conditions mentioned therein were violated, the first informant could not have the ownership of the land. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, all the applicants were minor and the agreement to sale entered by their forefathers was illegal. He has submitted that the forgery could not have been established since the applicant No.1, whose name is there in the agreement to sale has sold the land in question to Kamlesh Bhodidas Patel, Indrajit Ranchhodbhai Desai and Pankajbhai Dharmabhai Patel on 16.03.2010 and thereafter, since the same did not materialize in the year of 2016, subsequent agreement to sale was entered. It is submitted that the complainant has already instituted Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2016 before Civil Court (Rural), Mirzapur, Dist. Ahmedabad and the right of the disputed land is yet to be crystallized. Learned advocate has further submitted that execution of the sale deed will not amount to forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC. 3.2 He has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay. Ahmedabad and the right of the disputed land is yet to be crystallized. Learned advocate has further submitted that execution of the sale deed will not amount to forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC. 3.2 He has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay. Admittedly, the first sale deed was entered into between forefathers of the applicants and the respondent No.1 in the year of 1986 and more particularly, the conditions as stated therein are violated by him. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed. 3.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Choksi for learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha appearing for the respondent No.1-first informant has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Goswami and has submitted that at this stage, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed. It is submitted by the learned advocate that on 24.07.1986, registered Banakhat came to be executed between the respondent No.1 and the predecessors of the applicants for the land in question and the first informant was the rightful owner of the land in question. He has asserted that in view of the statement made by the applicant No.7, who was subsequently deleted vide order of this Court dated 01.09.2017, has supported the case of the complainant that at the relevant point of time, all the sale consideration was paid and conditions mentioned in the sale agreement were also satisfied and the land got transferred in the name of the first informant. 4.1 It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the applicants sold the land in question to one Kamlesh Bhodidas Patel, Indrajit Ranchhodbhai Desai and Pankajbhai Dharmabhai Patel for the sale consideration of Rs.18,12,000/- on 16.03.2010 and thereafter, the applicants unlawfully entered the land in question, created ruckus and threatened the first informant for dire consequences if land and rented shades, godowns are not vacated hence, the first informant was constrained to file a written complaint on 05.08.2016 before Sola Police Station, Ahmedabad. He has further submitted that thereafter, the respondent No.1 instituted Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2016 before the Civil Court (Rural), Mirzapur, Dist. Ahmedabad praying for permanent injunction against the applicants and after, hearing both the parties below Exh.16, the order came to be passed by the Civil Court on 03.09.2016, to maintain status quo till the next date and the same is extended upto 15.09.2016. It is further asserted by the learned advocate that despite the status quo of the Court, the applicants again sold the land in question on 22.12.2016, second time to third party for sale consideration of Rs.73,59,000/- and hence, the Civil Court thereafter, directed the applicants vide order dated 07.01.2017 to maintain the status quo till further orders. He has further submitted that after the order of status quo was passed, on 21.01.2017, the applicants abducted, kidnapped and assaulted the respondent No.1, who is 72 years old and pressurized him to withdraw the Civil Suit hence, the respondent No.1 was constrained to file a further F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-20 of 2017 before the Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 323, 294(b) and 506(1) and 114 of the IPC against the agents of the applicants. He has submitted that thereafter, after verifying the details from the Revenue Office it surfaced that the land in question was sold second time to the third party on 22.12.2016, by creating false documents(Irrevocable Power of Attorney) hence, the impugned F.I.R. came to be registered against the applicants. It is further submitted that by creating a subsequent sale deed, the applicants have committed forgery in the definition under Section 463 of the IPC. It is further submitted that at this stage, when the investigation is still in progress, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt, upon instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is personally present before this Court, has submitted that prima facie the offence of forgery and cheating as registered in the F.I.R. is established in the present case since the investigation, which has been carried out uptill now, reveals that though, the land is in the name of the respondent No.1; the applicants have entered into the sale agreements twice, in the year of 2010 and 2016. She has submitted that the accused No.7 has supported the case of the respondent No.1 and a specific statement is recorded by the Civil Court at Exh.26 that at the relevant point of time, in the year of 1986, the first informant had paid the requisite money to him and also satisfied all the conditions therein and he has also admitted that the land in question belongs to the respondent No.1. She has further submitted that despite the aforesaid facts, incorrect and false statement has been made by the applicants in the sale deed executed in the years 2010 and 2016 hence, the offence, prima facie, is established against the applicants. She has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed at this stage as the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 7. In the impugned F.I.R., the first informant has alleged that the applicants though, were aware that he is the real owner of the land and the sale deed for the same was registered on 24.07.1986, the applicants have created false documents and further executed a sale deed twice, once in the year of 2010 and thereafter, also in the year of 2016. The investigation, which is carried until now, prima facie reveals the complicity of the applicants. Further, the investigation reveals that the applicants have deliberately entered into such agreement in order to defeat the right, title and interest of the first informant and in fact, have made incorrect statement in both the sale deeds that there is no right, title and interest of anyone else and suit or proceedings are pending in this regard. The applicants were well aware that the first informant had instituted the Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction against the applicants and status quo was also granted vide order dated 03.09.2016 and thereafter, also the applicants sold the land in question second time to the third party for the sale consideration of Rs.73,59,000/-. It is not in dispute that the property was sold to the respondent No.1 in the year 1986 by the accused No.7. It is not in dispute that the property was sold to the respondent No.1 in the year 1986 by the accused No.7. Further, the investigation reveals that though, the status quo was granted, the applicants have made an incorrect and false statement that no Civil Suit in the record of the land in question is pending before any Court and there is no right, title and interest of anyone else except the applicants. It is also not in dispute that there are various disputed facts emerging in the matter and when the investigation is still at nascent stage and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, the correctness of the allegations cannot be examined by this Court merely, on the ground that the dispute appears to be of civil in nature. 8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 847 : “5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. 6. *** *** *** 7. *** *** *** 8. *** *** *** 9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside instituted the Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction against the applicants and status quo was also granted vide order dated 03.09.2016 and thereafter, also the applicants sold the land in question second time to the third party for the sale consideration of Rs.73,50,000/-. It is not in dispute that the property was sold to the complainant in the year 1986 by the accused No.7. Further, the investigation reveals that though, the status quo was granted, the applicants have made an incorrect and false statement that no Civil Suit in the record of the land in question is pending before any Court and there is no right, title and interest of anyone else except the applicants. It is also not in dispute that there are various disputed facts emerging in the matter and when the investigation is still at nascent stage and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, the correctness of the allegations cannot be examined by this Court merely, on the ground that the dispute appears to be of civil in nature. 9. Thus, the Apex Court has refused to quash the complaint in similar facts, where though the status-quo was granted, an incorrect and false statement was made that no Civil Suit in the record of the land in question is pending before any Court and there is no right, title and interest of anyone. It is further observed that the correctness of the allegations cannot be examined if there are various disputed question facts. The reliance placed on the judgement in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the applicants in wake of the afore-noted facts. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 847 has also enunciated thus : “5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to de the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.” 11. Hence, at this stage, the meticulous analysis of the case and the statements of the witnesses cannot be done since the investigation is in progress and charge-sheet is yet to be filed, as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2019) 4 SCC 351 : “In so far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 CrPC had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statement and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In out view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the appellate cur while deciding the appeal arising out the final order passed by the trial court but not in Section 482 CrPC proceedings.” 12. Resultantly, the present writ application is dismissed. The impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-102 of 2017 registered at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad is sustained. 13. After the judgement is over, learned advocate for the applicants has requested to extend the interim relief or to suspend this order. The same is objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Telangana Vs. 13. After the judgement is over, learned advocate for the applicants has requested to extend the interim relief or to suspend this order. The same is objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Jabib Abdullah Jeelani And Ors., AIR 2017 S.C. 373 and has submitted that if a petition has been dismissed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., further direction to the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons would amount to an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. albeit, without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provisions and the same is legally unacceptable. Thus, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Jabib Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and in view of the aforesaid objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the request is not acceded to. The prayer is, accordingly, hereby declined.