JUDGMENT : U Durga Prasad Rao, J. The petitioner/A1 implores for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.53 of 2016 pending on the file of Nidamarru Police Station, West Godavari District registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 IPC against him and others. 2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: Respondent No.10, who is the Village Revenue Officer of Chanapalli Village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District gave a report to the police stating that when he came to Meeseva Office of Nidamarru Mandal, he found one original certificate and one Xerox certificate with a name of Papolu Srinivas, S/o. Rama Rao. The said P.Srinivas resident of Adavikolanu village said to have applied for conversion of his agricultural lands into fish tanks vide application No.PRF011600007461 dated 26.05.2015 in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.7.86 cents in Sy.Nos.904/A-B-C123, 905/234. The complainant found that in respect of the same survey numbers for an extent of Ac.8.84 cents of land, the same applicant with registration No.PRF011600007452 had obtained permission on 26.05.2015. The permissions issued and Xerox copies contained two different signatures. His complaint was registered as Cr.No.53/2016 and investigated into. 3. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents 1, 5, 6 & 9 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 2, 4, 7 & 8. 4. While fulminating the complaint allegations as false and untenable, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any prima facie accusation against the petitioner-A1, he was implicated in the case and arrested and sent for remand. There is no iota of truth in the complaint and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the process of Court. He thus prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A1. 5. Staunchly traversing the petition, learned Government Pleader for Home would argue that investigation revealed that A1 & A2 have indulged in the act of creating fake provisional certificates as if the revenue authorities issued provisional certificates to the applicants for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks and in the process they collected huge amounts from the gullible applicants. He would submit that investigation is in the crucial stage to exhume the complicity of some other accused and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. He would submit that investigation is in the crucial stage to exhume the complicity of some other accused and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the case of petitioner to allow the writ petition and to quash the FIR No.53 of 2016? 7. Point: In the decision State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) AIR SC 604, the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. They are : "1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Hence, from the above guidelines it is discernable that if the allegations in the FIR and other material do not disclose the cognizable offence justifying the investigation by the police, the FIR can be directed to be quashed. However, in the instant case, we will presently find, no such dearth of material to quash the proceedings. It must be noted that during the course of investigation the police have arrested petitioner-A1 and submitted remand report under Section 167(1) & (2) Cr.P.C. before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem which discloses that some of the farmers started converting their paddy fields to fish tanks for which they have to obtain permission from the concerned Government officials. Some of the farmers started engaging the service of brokers for getting quick provisional permission certificates. A2 who was previously worked as reporter in Nidamarru is presently a broker offering services to the farmers to get provisional certificates from concerned authorities quickly by managing the officials with the active support of A1. So far as the petitioner-A1 is concerned, he is running a rural Meeseva centre at Nidamarru Village. A2 is conducting his activities through Meeseva centre of A1. While so, LW4-Papolu Srinivasa Rao is having Ac.7.86 cents of agricultural land at Adavikolanu village and LW5-Papolu Mohanarao, who is the brother of LW4 is maintaining the said land. In April 2016, LW5 approached A2 for obtaining permission for conversion of their lands into fish tanks. A2 prepared application in the name of LW4 by taking an amount @ Rs.15,000/- per acre to offer his brokerage services to obtain provisional permission. He promised that he would get permission from concerned authorities within two days. He uploaded the application on 27.04.2016 through A1's Meeseva centre vide application No.PRF011600007452. A2 prepared application in the name of LW4 by taking an amount @ Rs.15,000/- per acre to offer his brokerage services to obtain provisional permission. He promised that he would get permission from concerned authorities within two days. He uploaded the application on 27.04.2016 through A1's Meeseva centre vide application No.PRF011600007452. However, the said application was rejected by the authorities on 02.05.2016 for want of notice to Gram Pancahayat. Later A2 approached A1 and informed that the application of LW4 was rejected, but permission was essential to him as LW4 was ready with proclainers. Later A1 & A2 conspired together and with the help of provisional permission certificate available with A1 in PDF format, created a provisional permission certificate in respect of rejected application No.PRF011600007452. Thus, they created a fake permission certificate and handed over the same to LW5 stating that it was a genuine certificate. Later, A2 again applied for permission with the same application number to concerned authority through A1's Meeseva online service on 09.05.2016. The second application of Papolu Srinivasa Rao was approved and provisional permission was sanctioned. In the remand report it is mentioned that investigation is still pending for collection of evidence with regard to the creation of fake provisional certificates of Nidamarthi Ramakrishna of Nidamarru Village and Vegesana Venkata Subbaraju of Pedanindrakolanu village etc. The remand report further shows that A2 absconded. Thus, the investigation so far conducted reveals a strong prima facie case against both the accused as they allegedly created fake provisional certificates and issued to some farmers representing that they were genuine certificates and collected huge amounts from them. Investigation is in the crucial stage of collection of some more documents and examination of some other witnesses both official and private persons. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and pending investigation, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in FIR No.53 of 2016 against petitioner-A1. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the Investigating Agency to finalize the investigation expeditiously. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.