JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. Since, common issue arises in all these matters, the same are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Manavdar Police Station, District Junagadh, being C.R. No. 1-44 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Secs. 407, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the I.P.C.' for short). 3. The brief facts are incorporated from Misc. Criminal Application No. 8424 of 2015 as under: 3.1. It is alleged in the charge-sheet in Col. No. 5 against the present petitioners that one Anil Thakkar shown as accused No. 1 in Col. No. 2, who is legally not a broker, even though, he owned his fake name as "Anil Sharma" and through one Satish Prabhudas (shown as accused No. 2 in Col. No. 2) contacted the complainant for selling bales of cotton to Rajasthan, Haridwar, Dalpur etc. mills through Mohmed Tariqe Gulab Nagori (shown as Accused No. 3 in Col. No. 2) through his transport, from Ashish Cotton at Manavadar between January, 2008 to August, 2008 purchased cotton-bales No. 6284 at Rs. 7,89,68,613/- for sending to the concerned Mills but did not do so, and illegally without bills sold the goods to Ahmedabad firms and paid Rs. 5,37,36,211/- to the complainant, but did not pay Rs. 2,52,08,696/- of remaining bales No. 1892, and thereby, committed offence of cheating. It is further alleged that for making payment of remaining amount Anil Thakkar issued the cheques of U.C.O. Bank, Ahmedabad of N.C. No. 4636 though the said account which was closed, and fake signature was made of a person, who is not of that name. 3.2. It is also alleged that the account of A.D.C. Bank, Ahmedabad, Bipin Tribhovandas is shown in Col. No. 2 was used for sending the amount through the cheques to the complainant. 3.3. It is also alleged that accused-Pranlal Manilal shown in Col. No. 2, who is Chairman of Bhagyoday Ginning and accused-Ramesh Keshavlal, Manager issued the bills illegally to the accused-Rajendrakumar Ramniklal Thakkar to show the purchase and sale in the names of farmers by issuing 96 bogus cheques from the ginning factory in their name, though the same were not given to them. No. 2, who is Chairman of Bhagyoday Ginning and accused-Ramesh Keshavlal, Manager issued the bills illegally to the accused-Rajendrakumar Ramniklal Thakkar to show the purchase and sale in the names of farmers by issuing 96 bogus cheques from the ginning factory in their name, though the same were not given to them. Instead the same were given to accused Anil Thakkar, who in turn against the small cheque amounts had executed (H.V.S.) high value clearing through Shroff, and deposited in the account of the complainant. 3.4. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 8 to 16 shown in Col. No. 1 had sold threads from their Spinning Mills, and did not issue any bills and the cross-cheques issued by them were sent to Anil Thakkar, thereby showing their nexus with him. 3.5. It is also alleged that Anil Thakkar in order to sell the illegally acquired cotton bales, had engaged the accused-Jayanti Bechar, Chatur Govind and Vinod Kantilal (the present applicants) as brokers to sell the cotton bales without issuing bills on half percent brokerage, but the investigation reveals that these accused had committed offence of cheating by preparing forged bills of Bipin Tribhovandas and of other firms for selling the cotton-bales. 3.6. It is also alleged that accused-Chatur Singala (present applicant No. 3) sold cotton bales without bill to Mahendra Bechardas and Chandrakant Chimanlal. 3.7. Lastly, it is alleged that accused shown in Col. 1 and Col. 2 with abetment and conspiracy for the purpose of getting personal economic gain committed offence of cheating with the complainant, which led to filing of the charge-sheet. 3.8. The said charge-sheet is submitted on 18-2-2012 by Police Inspector Crime Branch, Junagadh, which is numbered as Criminal Case No. 1893/12 and the case is pending for trial. The charge is yet not framed against the present applicants/accused. 3.9. As the applicants apprehended their arrest in connection with the above F.I.R. annexed at Annexure 'A', they preferred application praying for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court at Junagadh by way of Misc. Criminal Application No. 465 of 2008, which was allowed and the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail on 21-12-2008. Thereafter, the applicants we're also enlarged on regular bail. 3.10. Criminal Application No. 465 of 2008, which was allowed and the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail on 21-12-2008. Thereafter, the applicants we're also enlarged on regular bail. 3.10. It is the case of the applicants that they were not named in the impugned F.I.R. (at Annexure 'A') and as per the applicants they had nothing to do with the alleged offences in said F.I.R. and as they were falsely implicated in this case, they preferred Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 5357 to 5360 of 2009 praying for quashing of the said F.I.R. The same were disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 3-10-2011 with a liberty to file appropriate applications for quashing after submission of report by the Magistrate. 3.11. After the disposal of the aforesaid writ applications, the Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against the applicants on 18-2-2012 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavdar, which was numbered as Criminal Case. No. 82/12 on 26-3-2012. 3.12. Subsequently, all these charge-sheets are transferred from Manavadar Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Junagadh and they are numbered as 1893/12, 1894/12, 1895/12, 1896/12, 1897/12 and 1971/12. Since then, these cases are pending for framing charge and the trial. Subsequently, the Criminal Cases are renumbered. The details are incorporated as under: Cr. M.A. No. FIR No. Charge-sheet No. Old Cri. Case No. Name of Court where old C.C. were pending Name of court where case is transferred and given new C.C. No. 8424/2015 44/2008 3/2012 Dt:18.02.2012 C.C. No.1893/2012 (pg. no.23- prayer clause of petition Junagadh CJM (pg.no.23- prayer clause) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.283/2017 8425/2015 47/2008 4/2012 Dt:18.02.2012 C.C. No.1894/2012 (pg. no.22- prayer clause of petition Junagadh CJM (pg.no.22- prayer clause) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.284/2017 8426/2015 49/2008 5/2012 Dt:18.02.2012 C.C. No.1895/2012 (pg. no.22- prayer clause of petition Junagadh CJM (pg.no.22- prayer clause) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.285/2017 8427/2015 51/2008 6/2012 Dt:18.02.2012 C.C. No.1896/2012 (pg. no.22- prayer clause of petition Junagadh CJM (pg.no.22- prayer clause) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.286/2017 9021/2015 34/2010 46/2012 Dt:17.09.2010 C.C. No.1897/2012 Junagadh CJM (pg.no.12 Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.287/2017 9025/2015 34/2010 46/2010 Dt:17.09.2010 C.C. No.1897/2012 (pg.no.13- prayer clause of petition) qua Mr. J.B.Pate Junagadh CJM (pg.no.13- prayer clause of petition) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.287/2017 3.13. It appears that the accused Nos. 5 to 13 of Column No. 1 of charge-sheet viz.; Mahesh Ambalal Patel had also preferred Misc. J.B.Pate Junagadh CJM (pg.no.13- prayer clause of petition) Vanthali JMFC C.C. No.287/2017 3.13. It appears that the accused Nos. 5 to 13 of Column No. 1 of charge-sheet viz.; Mahesh Ambalal Patel had also preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 1904 of 2011 and allied matters for quashing the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet which were disposed of on the ground of availability of alterative remedy vide order dated 27-6-2011. 3.14. The said accused 5 to 13 challenged the aforesaid order dated 27-6-2011 before the Supreme Court. By the judgment and order dated 27-1-2015 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 176, 177, 178 and 179 of 2015, the Supreme Court allowed all the said appeals by quashing and setting aside the order of this Court arid all the four charge-sheets. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt appearing for the applicants has submitted that the allegations made in the charge-sheet are against the other accused who had a direct dealing of payment with the complainant and even prima facie in Col. 5 also, it is mentioned that majority amount of the said purchase and sales amount is paid to the complainant, except some part payment, which reveals a civil dispute. He has submitted that the applicants have alleged that they are the brokers between the purchaser and seller, and therefore, they are not supposed to make payment of sale or purchase. He has also submitted that the applicants have acted as middle man between the purchaser and seller. Thus, he has submitted that the applicants are not involved in any of the offence. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has submitted that as far as the applicants are concerned, the entire charge-sheet papers do not disclose even prima facie the offence of forgery against the present applicants. Thus, he has submitted that the offence under Secs. 465, 466, 467 and 120B of the I.P.C. is not made out. He has submitted that the uncontroverted allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. and the charge-sheet papers do not disclose the commission of any offence and it does not make any case against the applicants. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has submitted that in Col. 5 in the charge-sheet, annexed at Annexure 'D' the accused Nos. He has submitted that the uncontroverted allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. and the charge-sheet papers do not disclose the commission of any offence and it does not make any case against the applicants. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has submitted that in Col. 5 in the charge-sheet, annexed at Annexure 'D' the accused Nos. 1 to 3, who are named in F.I.R. had placed order of purchase between January, 2008 to August, 2008 of 6274 cotton-bales valued at Rs. 7,89,68,613/- which was not sent to the concerned Mills and sold illegally at Ahmedabad and Rs. 5,37,36,211/- paid to the complainant, but Rs. 2,52,08,696/- of cotton-bales No. 1892 was not paid to the complainant, and thereby, cheated him. He has submitted that prima facie it seems to be a civil dispute between the complainant and those three main accused. Thus, he has submitted that as the similarly situated 11 other co-accused, who are earlier charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer and whose criminal proceeding was pending before the learned Magistrate Court, Junagadh are quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground of parity the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant are required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has submitted that as the applicants are only brokers; they are dealing their business at Ahmedabad, and they had not given any cheque to any of the accused which had gone in the account of either of any accused or in the account of any of the prosecution witness's account. He has submitted that the sale or purchase bill was never issued in the name of any of the applicant-accused nor even any of the document like bill, cheque, payment receipt, lorry receipt of transport delivery challan or any of the muddamal is recovered by the police during the investigation, which prima facie suggest that the applicants are only middle man between the purchaser and seller and as. they are brokers, they had received only brokerage which was earlier fixed. He has also submitted that the applicants are running their business of broker and agent in original and genuine name of the applicants. He has also submitted that the Police had not recovered any cheque, bill or any information from any one broker during the investigation, which suggest that the applicants are not involved in the alleged offences. 8. He has also submitted that the applicants are running their business of broker and agent in original and genuine name of the applicants. He has also submitted that the Police had not recovered any cheque, bill or any information from any one broker during the investigation, which suggest that the applicants are not involved in the alleged offences. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) report reveals complicity of accused-Anil Ramniklal Thakkar, since it is found that the bills were forged by him. 9. A fortiori, learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the respondent No. 2-complainant has submitted that at this stage the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside since there are disputed questions of fact involved and there are number of witnesses who are required to be examined in the trial proceedings establishing complicity of the present applicants. He has invited the attention of this Court to the statements of various witnesses. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the respondent No. 2-complainant has submitted that the judgment and order of the Apex Court passed in the case of co-accused cannot be made applicable in the case of the present applicants since roles of both the present applicants and the co-accused are totally different. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has quashed, the F.I.R. in the case of the factory-owners to whom the goods were sold, whereas the applicants though were commission agents have acquired the stolen cotton-bales and sold to the factory-owners as commission agents. Hence, the Apex Court had quashed the charge-sheet looking to the charge against them and the role played by them. He has submitted that in the present case, the investigation reveals that in fact the applicants, in connivance with each other and with the main accused-Anil Ramniklal Thakkar, have sold the cotton-bales by creating bills in the names of various firms. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the report dated 1-7-2010 in this regard prepared by Superintendent of Police, Junagadh, wherein the complicity of the present applicants are established. He has submitted that in fact in some of the statements of the farmers reveal that though the bills are issued in names of the firm, no amounts are received by them. He has submitted that in fact in some of the statements of the farmers reveal that though the bills are issued in names of the firm, no amounts are received by them. He has also submitted that the stock of cotton-bales in fact was to be supplied to the factories in Rajasthan, however, the same are diverted by the present accused and are sold to the different firms in Gujarat. He has further submitted that the forgery of the bills to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- is involved in the present case, and hence, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (11) SCC 529 . 11. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Monali Bhatt, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present before this Court, has submitted that the investigation reveals the involvement of the present applicants in the offence. She has submitted that the role of the accused cannot be simply said to be of Commission Agents, since while acting as agents, they have played an active role in selling the cotton-bales, which were meant to be supplied to Rajasthan, Haridwar etc., and were diverted to Ahmedabad in connivance with the applicants. She has submitted that the applicants were not in fact solely acting as commission agents, but they had participated in selling the goods and have also directly taken the amount from the factory-owners. She has also submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court in case of factory-owners or the middle man will not govern the case of the present applicants since in that case, the accused Nos. 5 to 13 were in fact found to be the owners of Spinning Mills, to whom the present applicants have directly sold the cotton-bales. It is contended that the investigation reveals that there are various bill which were generated by the applicants in the name of their firms and other firms for selling the stolen goods in Ahmedabad and other regions. She has placed reliance on the report dated 1-7-2010 prepared by the Superintendent of Police in this regard. It is contended that the investigation reveals that there are various bill which were generated by the applicants in the name of their firms and other firms for selling the stolen goods in Ahmedabad and other regions. She has placed reliance on the report dated 1-7-2010 prepared by the Superintendent of Police in this regard. She has also invited the attention of this Court to the statements of various witnesses and submitted that the statements of all the witnesses reveal the complicity of the present applicants, and hence, at this stage, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The papers of the charge-sheet are also perused. 13. In the present case, the investigation is already over and charge-sheet is already filed. Initially, the names of the present applicants-accused were not named in the impugned F.I.R., but after undertaking necessary further investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was filed, wherein the present applicants are arraigned as accused. Primarily, the applicants have premised their submissions on the judgment and order dated 27-1-2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2015, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of co-accused, i.e., the factory-owners or the owners of the spinning mills to whom the alleged stolen cotton-bales were sold. The Supreme Court has quashed the charge-sheet by observing the role of the accused. The Supreme Court has incorporated the role of the accused as below: "The role of the present appellants is stated thus:- "The accused Nos. 5 to 13 of Column No. 1 selling threads from their spinning factory to the witnesses in this case and by not issuing bill, cross cheques given by these witnesses have gone to the main accused Anil. Looking to it, abetment reveals against the main accused Anil Thakker." The Supreme Court has quashed the charge-sheet by observing thus: "It appears to us that from a cursory reading of one paragraphs attributed to the appellants herein, no case against the appellant is made out, as what is stated is that by not issuing a bill, a cross cheques have been given which is turn went to the main accused Anil. These cross cheques cannot possibly be linked to Anil's alleged forgery of certain other cheques and the consequent cheating alleged. These cross cheques cannot possibly be linked to Anil's alleged forgery of certain other cheques and the consequent cheating alleged. The appellants herein appear to the right in stating that they were mere middle men, but had no knowledge and had nothing to do with the alleged cheating and forgery committed by Anil." Thus, the Supreme Court has quashed the charge-sheet in light of the fact that the appellants were selling the threads made of cotton-bales in their spinning factories, and the cheques and bills cannot be linked with the main accused Anil. In the case of the present applicants, the role attributed to them in the charge-sheet reads thus: "The accused Anil Thakker who had obtained the cotton bales from the prosecution by cheating had engaged the accused of Column No. 5 Jayanti Bechar, Chatur Govind and Vinod Kantilal as agents for selling the cotton bales on brokerage of 1/2 percent without giving any bills, however, the investigation reveals that these accused by preparing forged bills of Bipin Tribhovandas as well as of their own firms and other firms, have sold the cotton bales which was procured by cheating"." 14. Thus, the roles attributed to the present applicants are absolutely dissimilar to the appellants, who were before the Apex Court. As observed in the charge-sheet, the investigation reveals that the applicants had sold the stolen cotton-bales to the factory owners by preparing forged bills of their own firms as well as other firms. Hence, the judgment and order of the Apex Court cannot come to the rescue of the applicants. 15. The contents of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet and the statements of the witnesses reveal that this is a widespread scam and it requires detail trial to establish the complicity of the accused. This Court, while examining the entire issue under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot delve upon the disputed questions and also the statements of various witnesses. However, the same were vociferously pointed out by learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The investigation also does not reveal the complicity of the applicant No. 1-Jayantibhai Bechardas Patel in the offence. However, the same were vociferously pointed out by learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The investigation also does not reveal the complicity of the applicant No. 1-Jayantibhai Bechardas Patel in the offence. As far as the role of the accused-Jayantibhai Bechardas Patel is concerned, the same is only confined as a commission agent and he has not sold the stolen goods, the investigation also reveals that no ingredients of Sec. 120B of the I.P.C. are satisfied in his case. The investigation also does not reveal any preparation of the forged bills by him. It is also fairly admitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the complainant that as far as the complicity of the applicant No. 1 is concerned, the investigation does not reveal his role in the offence. As regards the participation of applicant No. 2-Vinodkumar Kantilal Patel is concerned, it would be apposite to refer to the report dated 1-7-2010 of the Superintendent of Police, Junagadh where in the investigation, it is revealed that though he was acting as a commission agent has directly sold the cotton-bales in the market and has also generated various forged bills to that effect. For ready reference, few of the same are incorporated as under: Book No. Bill No. Date Amount 1 16 28/04/08 452694 2 67 09/06/08 577709 5 211 29/01/08 523621 5 246 16/03/08 520751 1 5 16/04/08 531640 5 206 08/01/08 491186 5 218 16/02/08 504821 6 254 18/03/08 506911 1 3 07/04/08 261407 1 17 28/04/08 533922 2 55 18/05/08 267428 2 70 09/06/08 587600 3 104 24/07/08 384440 5 230 28/02/08 446860 2 54 16/05/08 541093 2 96 05/07/08 629953 5 237 12/03/08 456789 3 107 27/07/08 574294 5 205 18/01/08 520355 5 240 13/03/08 530383 2 73 16/06/08 619258 5 203 16/01/08 488315 5 235 01/03/08 508939 1 2 02/04/08 496629 1 28 02/05/08 506360 2 56 20/05/08 526225 2 76 16/06/08 550696 2 84 25/06/08 583434 1 50 16/05/08 554584 2 82 25/06/08 624640 2 92 05/07/08 641767 3 117 19/08/08 603502 4 188 01/01/08 456668 5 204 17/01/08 491189 5 225 26/02/08 480513 1 10 18/04/0/ 505745 1 47 15/05/08 480208 2 64 04/06/08 561726 2 77 16/06/08 612120 3 120 22/08/08 610173 3 128 10/09/08 299972 4 155 17/01/08 276532 4 180 12/01/08 483331 4 197 01/01/08 456552 1 4 07/04/08 517935 2 89 01/07/08 631460 5 233 29/02/08 463414 1 20 28/04/08 252133 2 86 25/06/08 325368 3 109 03/08/08 304567 4 154 08/11/08 564779 1 21 28/04/08 253705 2 85 25/06/08 327888 3 110 03/08/08 295641 The investigation also prima facie reveals that the bills are prepared in their names as well as in the name of other firms and they have also received the amounts. It is the case of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 that they were in fact only getting brokerage of half percent of the sale, prima facie does not inspire confidence since, it appears that they were directly involved in selling the cotton-bales by forging the bill in the open market which were fraudulently procured by the main accused-Anil Thakker. The cotton-bales were meant to be sold to the spinning factories of Rajasthan, Haridwar etc. but the same were fraudulently diverted to the local market of Gujarat by the main accused-Anil Thakker, who in turn engaged the applicants for selling such goods. This Court while exercising the powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot appreciate the evidence. This Court cannot examine the genuineness of the bills generated by the applicants. but the same were fraudulently diverted to the local market of Gujarat by the main accused-Anil Thakker, who in turn engaged the applicants for selling such goods. This Court while exercising the powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot appreciate the evidence. This Court cannot examine the genuineness of the bills generated by the applicants. The Supreme Court in the case Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107 , has observed thus: "The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Secs. 323, 379 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not. 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Secs. 323, 379 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C., then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." Thus, the Apex Court has expressed that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code, since the contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses is an issue relating the appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be gone into by the trial Court when there is specific grievance of the complainant that an offence is committed. 16. In the present case, the investigation prima facie reveals the complicity of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. The investigation also reveals that the main accused-Anil Ramniklal Thakkar, who was the master-mind of the entire episode, was in direct contact with the present applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in selling the entire stock of cotton-bales, which were meant and to be supplied to the factory of Rajasthan, Haridwar etc. The investigation also reveals that prima facie the entire stock was diverted at Ahmedabad, which was meant to be sold at Rajasthan and after paying the amount partly the rest of the amount was not paid by the accused. 17. A close scrutiny of the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and the investigation papers reveal that the present case does not fall within the domain of purely a civil dispute. On a reading of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that the main offence alleged to have been committed by the appellants is 'cheating' punishable under Secs. 420 and 465 of Indian Penal Code: "Cheating is defined in Sec. 415 of the Code as, "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat." Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section." The Section requires:- (1) Deception of any person. (2)(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property." The allegations made in the charge-sheet and the role attributed to the accused, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 415 of the I.P.C. As regards offence punishable under Sec. 465 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, 2018 (7) SCC 581 , while examining the provisions of Secs. 463 and 464 of I.P.C. has held thus: "17 At this juncture, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition of 'forgery' and the precedents on this aspect. 463. Forgery: Whoever makes any false documents [or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record,] with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 18. It would also be necessary to understand the scope of Sec. 464, I.P.C. in this context. Making a false document. A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First. Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly. Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly. Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1:- A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2:- The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his life-time, may amount to forgery. Explanation 3:- For the purposes of this Section, the expression "affixing electronic signature" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Sec. 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Sec. 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Sec. 463, I.P.C. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Sec. 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Sec. 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Sec. 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Sec. 463, implying that ingredients under Sec. 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore, unless and until ingredients under Sec. 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Sec. 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Sec. 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete." 18. Therefore, unless and until ingredients under Sec. 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Sec. 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Sec. 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete." 18. The contents of the charge-sheet disclose that there are serious allegations of forging different bills are levelled against the accused. The aforesaid bills are alleged to have been generated to sell the cotton-bales which are fraudulently procured by the main accused-Anil Thakker. The F.S.L. report with regard to one of the Bills reveals that, the same was forged by Anil Thakker. There are various such bills which are generated by the accused for selling the illegal goods to various spinning mills. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the allegations leveled against the accused is bereft of any criminal liability, and the ingredients of Secs. 463 and 464 of the I.P.C. are absolutely missing. The receiving of the part payment of the cotton-bales will not designate the offence as a civil dispute in wake of the allegations of offence apropos forgery of the bills and selling the goods by diverting them from their original buyers. Hence, this Court is not impressed with the submissions that the allegations or the facts expose only a civil dispute. 19. It would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka, 2009 (11) SCC 529 , which reads as under: "14. In the above-mentioned case, this Court has taken the view that when the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. However, the same is not the situation in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that though 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, but 100 bales of cotton are yet to be dispatched. The defence raised by the appellant hereinabove can be urged and proved only during the course of trial. While entertaining a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. While entertaining a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. The Investigating Agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases. 15. While considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is not one of those extreme cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed by the Court at the very threshold. A defence case is pleaded but such defence is required to be considered at a later stage and not at this stage. The appellants would have ample opportunity to raise all the issues urged in this appeal at an appropriate later stage, where such pleas would be and could be properly analysed and scrutinized." 20. The Supreme Court has observed that the defence raised by the appellant hereinabove can be urged and proved only during the course of trial. While entertaining a petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. In the present case, the papers of the charge-sheet do not specify that there is no prima facie material available against, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, and the same is bereft of any criminal accountability. 21. On the substratum of the foregoing analysis and observations, the impugned charge-sheets and the criminal cases are sustained apropos applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The trial shall proceed further against the applicants Vinodkumar Kantilal Patel and Chaturbhai Govindbhai Singala. However, the impugned F.I.R. and charge-sheet as well as criminal cases pending before the concerned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vanthali are hereby quashed and set side qua the applicant-accused No. 1-Jayantibhai Becharbhai Patel. 22. The present application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. However, the impugned F.I.R. and charge-sheet as well as criminal cases pending before the concerned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vanthali are hereby quashed and set side qua the applicant-accused No. 1-Jayantibhai Becharbhai Patel. 22. The present application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. FURTHER ORDER: After the judgment was dictated, learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicants has requested that interim relief may be extended for a period of eight weeks, 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 v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in AIR 2017 SC 373 , and has submitted that if a petition has been dismissed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., further direction to the Investigating Agency not to arrest the accused person(s) would amount to an order under Sec. 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 Habib Abdullah Jeelani, [ AIR 2017 SC 373 ], 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.