JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No.234/2018 dated 04.10.2018 registered at Police Station Uniyara District Tonk for the offence under Sections 66, 66(a)(b) 66(c) 66(e) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, "the Act of 2000") and Sections 499, 501, 354 (d), 509, 506 and 504 of IPC. 2. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR No.241/2017 dated 11.05.2017 registered by Nandlal Sharma, father-in-law of the petitioner, at Police Station Nayapura, District Kota City, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that therein the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Pawan Jangir son of the respondent No.2/complainant and Mukut Bihari Alodiya for the offences under Sections 419, 500, 509 of IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. He submitted that to counterblast the aforesaid FIR, he has falsely been implicated in the instant FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is resident of United States of America for last about 11 years and to harass and victimize him, the instant FIR was lodged on private complaint. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the same. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the status report dated 07.02.2021 furnished by the Station House Officer, Uniyara, District Tonk which is taken on record. As per the status report, on completion of investigation, allegations against the present petitioner have been found to be established and charge-sheet has been proposed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant opposing the prayer submitted that the contents of FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence and hence, the same cannot be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. The contents of FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence. It is trite law that if bare reading of the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, should not quash the same. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.r AIR 2008 SCC2781, held as under:- "30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.r AIR 2008 SCC2781, held as under:- "30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 ; Raghubir Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336 ; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451 ; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122 ]." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors., AIR 2009 SCC 671 , held as under:- "8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. ( AIR 1993 SC 892 ), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another ( AIR 1964 SC 1 )). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the 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 in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others ( AIR 1990 SC 494 ), State of Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another ( 1995 (6) SCC 194 ), State of Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others ( 1999 (2) SCC 651 ), State of U.P. v. 0. P. Sharma ( 1996 (7) SCC 705 ), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada ( 1997 (2) SCC 397 ), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another ( 1999 (8) SCC 728 ), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216 ), State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another ( 2002 (3) SCC 89 )." 9. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the FIR filed by his father-in-law, cannot be countenanced at this stage; especially when after thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency has found the allegations to be established against the petitioner. 10. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar (supra), held as under:- "31. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is correct and offence has been committed which will have to be established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty of mala fides. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for quashing the proceedings. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for quashing the proceedings. [See State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC 542 ; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122 ; State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanah (1980) 1 SCC 544; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 2005 (13) SCC 540 ]. There may be some exceptions to the said rule but we are not concerned with such a case." 11. In view of the nature of allegations contained in the FIR, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is resident of United States of America for last about 11 years and could not have committed the offence, is not tenable as for commission of such offence, physical presence of the petitioner was not required. 12. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 13. The pending application stands disposed of accordingly.