JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed by petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.74/2016 of Police Station, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, which was lodged by respondent No.2, who happened to be the trustee of Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, Nagaur Fort Kuchaman, District Nagaur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Trust’). 2. The sum and substance of the impugned FIR is this that the Trust had executed a lease-deed in favour of M/s Rathore Hotels and Tours Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner No.1 was the Director of the said company and petitioner No.2 is father of petitioner No.1, whereas the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are brother and mother of petitioner No.1 respectively. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that vide lease-deed of the year 1992, a portion of Kuchman Garh (Fort) was leased out to M/s Rathore Hotels and Tours Private Limited, however, the petitioner No.1 hatched a conspiracy and obtained a loan of rupees five crore from Punjab National Bank, Delhi by mortgaging the whole property of Kuchaman Fort while submitting some forged documents claiming that he was leased out the whole Kuchaman Fort. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No.1 had no authority to mortgage the whole property of Kuchman Fort because the whole property was not leased out to M/s Rathore Hotels and Tours Private Limited. Several other allegations have also been levelled in the impugned FIR. 4. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned FIR mainly on the ground that in relation to the very transaction, an FIR being No.88/2012 was filed by the Chief Trustee of the Trust at Police Station, Kuchaman City, in which, the Police after thorough investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that once the allegations levelled by the Trust against the petitioners have been thoroughly investigated and final report has been filed by the investigating agency, then it is not open for the same Trust to file another complaint levelling same allegations. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that once the allegations levelled by the Trust against the petitioners have been thoroughly investigated and final report has been filed by the investigating agency, then it is not open for the same Trust to file another complaint levelling same allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the investigating agency is not taking into consideration this fact and is bent upon to implicate the petitioners for the alleged crime, which has already been investigated by it in the year 2012 and charge-sheet has been filed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR against the petitioners is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR to the effect that the petitioner No.1 is not authorized to mortgage the whole property of Kuchaman Fort is also incorrect. The attention of the Court is invited towards the copy of the lease-deed of the year 1992 executed by one Smt. Raj Lakshmi Shah on behalf of Trust and it is pointed out that as per the said lease-deed, the petitioner was fully authorized to procure loan by mortgaging the property of the Kuchaman Fort. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the year 2013, an agreement was also executed between the Trust and M/s Shiva Corporation India Ltd., wherein it was agreed that the proceedings between the parties would be withdrawn on the basis of the terms of the agreement. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are allegations in the impugned FIR against them, however, no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in the impugned FIR and taking into consideration this fact, it is clear that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have falsely been implicated in this case only because they are relatives of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 9. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed this criminal misc. 1 and 2. 9. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the FIR No.88/2012 are quite distinct and both the FIRs are in relation to two separate crimes and not for a common crime. It is further argued that the contention of the petitioners of this effect that petitioner No.1 was authorized to mortgage the whole property of the Kuchaman Fort is also not tenable because from the bare perusal of the leasedeed of the year 1992, it is clear that only a portion of the Kuchaman Fort was leased out to the petitioner No.1 and not the whole of its property. It is also argued that the petitioner No.1 had procured loan from Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the whole property of the Kuchaman Fort by misrepresentation and by filing false claim that the whole property of Kuchaman Fort is leased out to him. It is further submitted that so far as petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, specific allegations regarding their involvement in commission of crime are levelled in the impugned FIR. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant have also submitted that it is settled that when a bare reading of the FIR constitute a prima facie offence, then the FIR cannot be quashed. 12. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 13. So far as FIR No.88/2012 of Police Station, Kuchaman City is concerned, in the said FIR, the main allegation against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was that they had submitted some forged letters in the Court of Assistant Commissioner of Devasthan, Ajmer. The complainant, in that complaint, had stated that she never wrote the said letters at any point of time and the petitioner No.1 had stolen the blank signed papers of the complainant and thereafter used them while showing that they had already paid the lease amount etc. which, they never paid. The complainant, in that complaint, had stated that she never wrote the said letters at any point of time and the petitioner No.1 had stolen the blank signed papers of the complainant and thereafter used them while showing that they had already paid the lease amount etc. which, they never paid. In the complaint of the year 2012, there was no mention about the procurement of the loan by the petitioner No.1 while claiming himself as authorized person to mortgage the whole property of Kuchaman Fort. The allegations regarding preparation of forged letters and nonpayment of lease amount, as per lease-deed of 1992, were principal allegations in the said complaint. 14. So far as impugned FIR is concerned, the principal allegation is that the petitioner No.1 has procured loan from the Punjab National Bank while falsely representing that he is authorized to mortgage the whole property of Kuchaman Fort but in fact, he was not authorized to mortgage the said property as per the lease agreement and was authorized to mortgage only part of that. 15. After carefully scrutinizing both the complaints, I am of the opinion that the allegations levelled in two complaints are quite distinct. 16. So far as contention of the counsel for the petitioners of this effect that as per the lease-deed of the year 1992, petitioner No.1 was authorized to mortgage the whole property of Kuchaman Fort for procuring loan is concerned, the same is a matter of investigation and no finding can be recorded in respect of the same at this stage. 17. Similarly, so far as settlement agreement executed between M/s Rathore Hotels and Tours Private Limited, complainant – Trust and M/s Shiva Corporation India Ltd. is concerned, that is also a matter of investigation and only after investigation it can be concluded that what will be the effect of settlement agreement. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements such as State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has specifically held that where the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do constitute a prima facie case, the FIR cannot be quashed. 19. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has specifically held that where the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do constitute a prima facie case, the FIR cannot be quashed. 19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do constitute prima facie case for commission of cognizable offence and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. and Rupal Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. (supra), the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. 20. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.