ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the FIR No. 12/2022 dated 27.1.2022 registered with Clock Tower Police Station in the town of Ajmer at the behest of respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471 IPC. 2. The challenge is on the ground that FIR is clear abuse of the process of law initiated with malafides/ malice to wreak vengeance and to cause harm to the claim of the petitioner as well as on the ground that it suffers from absurd and inherently improbable allegations. 3. According to the FIR, the accused petitioner was known to the complainant respondent No.2 since last 12-13 years as accused was having a business known as ’JNT Brothers’ as well as accused was engaged in money lending. The respondent No.2 handed over a Vasiyatnama (Will), Mukhtarnama (power of attorney) and an agreement to sell in respect of his shop No.3 at Kishan Bhawan to his friend Ranjeet Moolchandani on 13.4.2016. The documents were handed over due to friendship between the two. Later on, with the consent of respondent No.2, Ranjeet Moolchandani handed over those documents to the petitioner along with a post-dated cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- as security and took loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the petitioner @ 2% interest. In the month of September, 2016, Ranjeet returned the loan amount to the petitioner and asked for the cheque and the documents but the petitioner did not provide those documents and cheque, rather placed the cheque for clearance before the Bank and the cheque was declared dishonoured. Then the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ’NI Act’) against Ranjeet. Since the petitioner had dishonest intention he did not return the documents referred above and just to grab the shop of respondent No.2, made certain interpolations in the said documents to put wrongful claim on the shop of respondent No.2 whereas respondent No.2 had never sold the said shop to the petitioner. The photographs and signatures of respondent No.2 are pasted and forged on the said document by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 expressed apprehension that the said documents might be maliciously used by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the record that Ranjeet was purchasing goods from the shop of the petitioner and there was due with him for the goods purchased. Respondent No.2 expressed apprehension that the said documents might be maliciously used by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the record that Ranjeet was purchasing goods from the shop of the petitioner and there was due with him for the goods purchased. For payment of that due amount Ranjeet had issued cheque which bounced, then the petitioner initiated criminal prosecution against Ranjeet under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial resulted in conviction of Ranjeet by judgment dated 08.01.2019 passed in Cr. Case No. 527/2016 vide Annexure-2. 5. Ranjeet preferred an appeal against his conviction vide Criminal Appeal No. 13/2022 and the appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 17.5.2022 only after compromise between the parties which was effected only after refund of the cheque amount by Ranjeet to the petitioner. Therefore, Ranjeet was carrying a grudge against the petitioner. However, Ranjeet never made any statement during trial of the criminal case against him that the three documents were handed over to him by respondent No.2 and later on Ranjeet had handed over the said documents to the petitioner. 6. The fact is that respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sale shop No.3 to the petitioner. The agreement was executed before the notary public and in presence of the witnesses. Out of total consideration of money of Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner at the time of agreement and Rs. 14,00,000/- was to be handed over at the time of registration which the petitioner paid and respondent No.2 handed over possession of the shop to the petitioner. Due to COVID situation the shop was not opened by the petitioner, however the petitioner came to know that respondent No.2 had sold the said shop to some other person then the petitioner found himself cheated, an FIR No. 233/2021 on 4.12.2021 was filed against respondent No.2 and others which is still pending. In the aforesaid background, for the first time respondent No.2 cooked up a story that he had handed over the documents including the paper of agreement to sale to Ranjeet and Ranjeet gave it to the petitioner is highly unbelievable, especially in absence of any explanation as to why the valuable security was handed over to a friend; whether to indulge in cheating others or to use it to play fraud upon others. Learned counsel submits that one thing is admitted that the three of the documents were created by respondent No.2 and the documents came into the hands of the petitioner to his knowledge. If the documents were not carrying any name or photographs of any individual, depicting the nature of the document, it was worthless and there was no reason to hand it over to the petitioner, therefore, in all probabilises the earlier case of the petitioner that in fact there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to sell the shop No.3 and respondent No.2 played fraud by selling the shop to some other person and just to save his skin, the false case has been lodged. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that it has been well settled by catena of judicial pronouncements that power of quashing the criminal proceedings especially the FIR should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry with the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The extraordinary and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court. The First Information Report is only an initiation to move the machinery of criminal justice administration if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR. In the FIR on hand allegation of forgery or tampering a valuable security is there, which should be allowed to be investigated and if found proved, it ought not be scuttled at the threshold. 8. In the case of Prof. R.K. Vijaysarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment quoted as follows: "9. Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd.5, a two judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: ’12. ... In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd.5, a two judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: ’12. ... (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. " 9. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. " 9. In the background of two incidents, a criminal prosecution of Ranjeet under Section 138 NI Act wherein Ranjeet never said that the referred documents were handed over to him by respondent No.2 herein, improbabilise the claim of respondent No.2 rather earlier criminal prosecution lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2 alleging therein that respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner and after getting full consideration money sold the shop to some other person makes the claim of respondent No.2 in the FIR improbable because the incident of 2016 was never disclosed earlier even after conviction of Ranjeet in a criminal case for the same incident or even after institution of the criminal case by the petitioner against the respondent. 10. The background allegation prima facie shows that respondent No.2 acted with malice to pressurize the petitioner to not to pursue further his claim based on agreement to sale with respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had admitted that Ranjeet was his business partner also besides being a friend in his statement before the police on 14.12.2016, a copy of which is at page 56. In case the claim of the private respondent that with the consent of respondent Ranjeet had handed over above referred three documents to the petitioner is accepted, the allegation that the document was forged is redundant for the reason that prima facie, the document does not appear to have been tampered nor the respondent No.2 has produced a copy of the same to show that the original was not carrying what is depicted in the documents produced by the petitioner. Moreover, if those documents were not creating any right in favour of the petitioner it would have been worthless for the petitioner to accept it as security and no prudent person is expected to accept the document as security which does not create any right in his favour. Therefore, the FIR suffers from bald allegations. 11. Moreover, if those documents were not creating any right in favour of the petitioner it would have been worthless for the petitioner to accept it as security and no prudent person is expected to accept the document as security which does not create any right in his favour. Therefore, the FIR suffers from bald allegations. 11. To conclude the FIR under challenge was initiated to wreak vengeance against the petitioner as Ranjeet was already convicted and the present palpably malicious prosecution has been initiated only to defeat the claim of the petitioner in pursuance of agreement to sale between the parties. 12. Therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, hence the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR stands quashed and this petition stands allowed. Any observations made above is for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not affect the right/defence of the parties in any other proceedings between them.