ORDER Sharma, J:- 1. Animadverting upon the method and manner in which the FIR dated 24.2.2022 vide No. RC0082022A0004 has been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “CBI”) under sections 120-B r/w. Section 420 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner , this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is focused to get it quashed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run hereinafter. A written complaint dated 18.2.2022, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal, has been lodged by Shri K. J. Srikanth, General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bhopal, against M/s. Brownie & sons ( represented by its partners / guarantors namely Shri Sunil Tiberwal, Shri Vivek Sharma / present petitioner and unknown public servants / unknown others, alleging therein that the aforesaid accused including the present petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves with dishonest intention to cheat Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) in a matter of CC facilities / term loan and they cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.3.44 crore, by way of siphoning / diversion of the bank funds for their personal use, during the period from 2014 to 2015. 3. Original complaint dated 18.2.2022 is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-P/2, in which it has been alleged that M/s Brownie and Sons, Bhopal is a partnership firm established on 2.5.2014, having its registered office at G-02, Sagar Homes, Phase-1, 273 Sector-A, Kolar Road, Sarvadharam Colony, Bhopal. The firm M/s Brownie and Sons was engaged in hospitality sector and intended to start a business of running bar, restaurant and discotheque. The firm was promoted by two partners Shri Sunil Tiberwal and Vivek Sharma (present petitioner) on equal sharing basis. M/s Brownie and Sons was financed with credit facilities to the extent of Rs.350 Lacs by Arera Colony Branch, e-Syndicate Bank (Now Canara Bank), Bhopal on 17.10.2014 and the account slipped to NPA w.e.f. 30.11.2015 in the books of the Bank. The present liability of the partnership firm with bank is Rs.3.44 crore as on date plus interest. M/s Brownie and Sons was financed with credit facilities to the extent of Rs.350 Lacs by Arera Colony Branch, e-Syndicate Bank (Now Canara Bank), Bhopal on 17.10.2014 and the account slipped to NPA w.e.f. 30.11.2015 in the books of the Bank. The present liability of the partnership firm with bank is Rs.3.44 crore as on date plus interest. M/s. Brownie and sons approached Arera Colony Branch, e-Syndicate Bank for financial assistance of Rs.350.00 lacs comprising of term loan of Rs.325.00 lacs towards purchase of commercial property situated at Aura Mall (II Floor, Unit No.5-02, commercial space of built up area of 2921 sq. ft. at Aura Mall, Arera Colony,, Bhopal) and for purchase of furniture and fixtures, discotheque stage, interior decoration etc. for setting up a new pub cum restaurant in the said property and OD limit of Rs.25.00 lacs towards working capital expenditure. The RO, Bhopal, vide orders dated 17.10.2014 sanctioned a composite loan of Rs.350 lacs to M/s. Brownie and sons. Out of the sanctioned term loan amount of Rs.325 lacs, Bank had disbursed Rs.317 lacs towards purchase of the Commercial property at Aura mall and remitted to M/s Sandhyaprakash Ltd. (seller). The said property was registered vide sale deed No. 1894(2) dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the borrower M/s Brownie & Sons in Sub-Registrar Office, Bhopal The branch has created UREM on 21.10.2014 by deposit of original title deed no. 1894(2). However, on visit to the property site, it was found that the shop has no furniture and fixtures and the money has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was given. The unit has never commenced its commercial business and the materials and equipments were neither delivered nor installed by the suppliers/contractors, which clearly indicates that the borrowers have colluded with the suppliers and misappropriated & siphoned off the bank fund for personal use. The facts mentioned in the aforesaid complaint vide Annexure-P/2, prima facie, reveal commission of cognizable offences and thus, the FIR in question has been registered against the present petitioner and also against others. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is thus, entitled to protection of all constitutional rights guaranteed including the fundamental rights flowing from part-III of the Constitution. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is thus, entitled to protection of all constitutional rights guaranteed including the fundamental rights flowing from part-III of the Constitution. The petitioner is not a government servant and therefore, an offence under section 13 (2) r/w. Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has no mens rea involved on the face of allegations and thus no offence is made out. Even if all the allegations alleged to have been made against the petitioner are accepted in toto, no offence under section 420 of IPC is made out. Further submits that the loan was granted to the petitioner in the year 2014 and if the petitioner firm made any default in payment of the said loan amount then the Bank could have taken recourse to under SARFAESI Act. All the Bank officials have been exonerated by holding that no criminality is involved but the petitioner and some others have been roped in by alleging criminal conspiracy. Further contends that the issue relates to the year 2014 but the CBI rose from its stupor in the year 2022 when the FIR was lodged. Further contends that the matter is essentially civil in nature. The petitioner is not a beneficiary and the amount has never been credited in his account and in fact, the amount has been credited in the account of other person like Sunil Tiberwal. Thus, merely because the petitioner is guarantor, mens rea cannot be alleged against him. 5. Further contends that the matter is essentially civil in nature. The petitioner is not a beneficiary and the amount has never been credited in his account and in fact, the amount has been credited in the account of other person like Sunil Tiberwal. Thus, merely because the petitioner is guarantor, mens rea cannot be alleged against him. 5. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble apex Court reported in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Paras No. 40 to 44), Satishchandra Ratalnlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 148 (Paras No. 11 to 13), Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 401 (Paras No. 10 to 11), Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59 (Paras No. 15 to 20), Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 14 SCC 233 (Paras No. 16 to 20), Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 293 (Paras No. 10 to 12), State of Harayana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (Para No. 102), Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641 (Paras No. 366 to 370) and M. Suresh and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2018) 15 SCC 273 (Paras No. 9 to 12); and prayed that the petition be allowed and the FIR in question be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/CBI has opposed the contentions raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner; and the gist and kernel of his opposition is that the investigation is pending at nascent stage and the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. It is also submitted that element of deceit and fraud are present in the case since the initial stage of transaction. It is further submitted that none of the cases relied upon by the petitioner pertains to quashment of FIR. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the entire material available on record. 8. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. It is further submitted that none of the cases relied upon by the petitioner pertains to quashment of FIR. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the entire material available on record. 8. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint / FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report / summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 9. The proceedings for quashment of the FIR should be exercised sparingly and in the rare cases. The investigation which is to be carried out / going on by the Authority generally should not be interfered. In the case of State of Tamilnadu v. S. Martin reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 , it has been held that during investigation the High Court ought not to have interfered in investigation and investigating agency ought to have been permitted to continue the investigation and come to a logical conclusion. It is argued that the investigation is going on, and it cannot be said at this stage whether the State Authorities are filing a charge sheet against the petitioner or filing a closure report looking to the contents of the complaint made by the respondent No.2 in the FIR. In such circumstances no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. 10. The parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are now almost well-settled. Although it has wide amplitude, but a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. The requirement is, the application of well known legal principles involved in each and every matter. Although it has wide amplitude, but a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. The requirement is, the application of well known legal principles involved in each and every matter. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any material on record which can be stated to be of sterling and impeccable quality warranting invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. More so, the defence as raised by the petitioner in the petition requires evidence, which cannot be appreciated, evaluated or adjudged in the proceedings herein and the same can only be proved in the Court of law. Under these circumstances, needless to say that the case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case which are altogether different from the cited cases. There are serious allegations in the FIR / complaint and looking to the contents of the FIR, there are sufficient material available for constituting the aforesaid offences. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent and there is no allegation against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall certainly consider and deal with the contentions and the defence of the petitioner in accordance with law. 13. It is also made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order, while considering the trial.