JUDGMENT : This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Shri Hemant Agarwal for quashing the FIR of Itanagar P.S. Case No.200/2018 under Section 468/471/420 IPC. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by Shri Roni Lishi on 07.06.2018, upon which, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 200/2018 has been registered and investigation is being carried out. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly, stated as under:- “The petitioner, Shri Hemant Agarwal and the respondent No. 2 -Shri Roni Lishi are familiar to each other. The petitioner was in need of money for providing the same as bank guarantee for a tender project at Majuli and other purposes. Then on a request made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had lent him a sum of Rs.6,25,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crore Twenty Five Lakhs) only, without any written agreement and the aforesaid amount was transferred to the account of petitioner in 3 (three) instalments vide Axis Bank Cheque No.9313, dated 31.10.2017, for a sum of Rs.4,10,00,000/-(Rupees Four Crores and Ten Lakhs) only, vide mobile banking, dated 01.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) only, and Axis Bank Cheque No. 9334, dated 03.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore and Ninety Lakhs) only. The petitioner had promised to return the amount within few days. But, after lapse of few weeks, the petitioner failed to return the sum. Then, the respondent No. 2 requested him in his Mobile to refund the sum and he assured to return the same within few days. On his persistence request, the petitioner has return a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Lakhs) in two instalments and assured to return rest of the amount in few days. But, few day turn into several months and when the petitioner failed to return the balance amount i.e. 5,65,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores and Sixty Five Lakhs) despite several telephonic request and message, the respondent No. 2 personally visited his office at Paschim Boragaon and his residence at Saraswati Vihar, Sundarpur at Guwahati on many occasions. But, he could not be found either in the office or in his residence. But, he could not be found either in the office or in his residence. Then, the respondent No. 2 requested his friend Shri Neelam Tamuli to meet the petitioner regarding refund of money but his friend also failed to convey the message and his friend was the main witness of the aforementioned transactions, who happened to be common friend of the petitioner and on one occasion, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) in the name of M. L. Enterprises and sent him the counterfoil of RTGS done through the State Bank of India, Beltola Branch. But, he found that no money was transferred in the SBI Account. The counterfoil of RTGS with seal was found to be fake. Then in the month of April, 2018, the petitioner called the respondents that he would deposit a sum of Rs.45,00,000/ (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs) in his account and when he checked his account, but he found only Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand), deposited in his account and when the respondent informed that he will lodged a police case then the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences and blocked his number and messages to avoid returning of money which amounts to Rs.5,65,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores and Sixty Five Lakhs) and that the petitioner has toed his trust and cheated him. Upon the said FIR, the O.C. of Itanagar Police Station registered the case being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 200/2018 under Section 468/471/420 IPC and being investigated upon. While the investigation was being carried out, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition for quashing the FIR.” 3. I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP representing State respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP representing State respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of Shri Ashok Agarwal, who is the proprietor of the firm Horizon Marketing and there is business transaction between the respondent and the father of the petitioner and that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 468/471/420 IPC are not made out, and that the allegation against the petitioner is absurd and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, the FIR can be quashed. Referring to the Whatsapp message Mr. Agarwal submits that the said pay-in-slip is not a valuable security and nowhere relates to M.T. Enterprises and no wrongful loss or wrongful gain has been derived by the petitioner. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contentions made in the petition is not disputed by the respondents by filing any counter affidavit. It is the further submission of Mr. Agarwal that the dispute is civil in nature and civil remedy is available for the same and the present FIR is filed with malafide intention, adding criminal flavour to a civil proceeding which is not at all permissible. Mr. Agarwal has referred the following case laws in support of his submission:- (1) Binod Kumar &Ors. vs. State of Bihar &Anr reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 ; (2) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scinida-vs.-Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 ; (3) State of Haryan-vs-Bhajanlal &Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (4) State of West Bengal &Ors. Mr. Agarwal has referred the following case laws in support of his submission:- (1) Binod Kumar &Ors. vs. State of Bihar &Anr reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 ; (2) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scinida-vs.-Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 ; (3) State of Haryan-vs-Bhajanlal &Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (4) State of West Bengal &Ors. vs.-Swapan Kumar Guha &Ors reported in (1982) 1 SCC 561 ; (5) Hari Prasad Chamaria-vs-Bishun Kumar Surekha &Ors reported in AIR 1974 SC 301 ; (6) Indian Oil Corporation-vs-NEPC India; reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 ; (7) Harshendra Kumar D.-vs-Rebatilata Koley&Ors reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 ; (8) Sudhdeo Jha Utpal-vs-The State of Bihar; reported in AIR 1957 SC 466 ; (9) Tulsi Ram and Others-vs-The State of U.P.; reported in AIR 1963 SC 666 ; (10) Hari Sao and Anr-vs-State of Bihar; reported in AIR 1970 SC 843 ; (11) State of Kerala-vs-A. Pareed Pillai and Anr; reported in (1972) 3 SC 661; (12) Hamanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Ors-vs-The State of Punjab and Ors; reported in (2009) 7 712; (13) Dilip Kaur and Ors-vs-Jagnar Singh and Anr; reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 ; (14) V. P. Shrivastava-vs-Indian Explosive Ltd; reported in (2010)10 SCC 361 ; and (15) Manoranjan Sinha-vs-Bishamborlal Saboo; reported in 1976 Cr. L. J. 1622-Gauhati. 5. Per contra Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 2 has admittedly not submitted any counter affidavit as the Court is required to see the FIR of the accompanied documents. Further, Mr. Panging submits that a bare perusal of the FIR indicates that a clear case under Section 420 IPC is made out, although, the ingredients of other offence may not be satisfied, at this stage. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited-vs.-State of Maharashtra; reported in (2021) 3 Supreme 531 Mr. Panging, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 6. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Panging, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 6. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR, the offence under Section 468/471/420 IPC appears to be made against the petitioner and that though civil remedy is available, yet, the criminal case cannot be quashed on account of the same and only after investigation it could be ascertained whether the allegation are false or true. And therefore, Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP contended to dismiss the petition and to vacate the stay order and to allow the police to complete the investigation. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, specially, the FIR, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-VIII. And having gone through the same, I find substance in the submissions so advanced by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent No. 1. It is to be noted here that a careful perusal of the FIR reveals following facts and circumstances can be culled out:- (i) The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are familiar to each other. (ii) The petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to lend some amount for furnishing the same as bank guarantee for a tender project at Majuli and other purposes. (iii) The respondent No.2 had lent him a sum of Rs.6,25,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crore Twenty Five Lakhs) only, without any written agreement and the aforesaid amount was transferred to the account of petitioner in 3 (three) instalments. (iv) The petitioner had promised to return the amount within few days, but, the petitioner failed to keep his promise. (v) On persistent request of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has return a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Lakhs) in two instalments and assured to return rest of the amount in few days. (vi) But, few days turn into several months, but, the petitioner had failed to return the balance amount i.e. 5,65,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores and Sixty Five Lakhs). (vii) The respondent No. 2 personally visited the office residence of the petitioner at Guwahati, on many occasions. (vi) But, few days turn into several months, but, the petitioner had failed to return the balance amount i.e. 5,65,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores and Sixty Five Lakhs). (vii) The respondent No. 2 personally visited the office residence of the petitioner at Guwahati, on many occasions. But, he failed to find him out. (viii) On the request of respondent No. 2, his friend Shri Neelam Tamuli, who was the main witness of the aforementioned transactions, also tried to meet the petitioner regarding refund of money, but he also failed to convey the message. (ix) On one occasion, the petitioner conveyed him that he had deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) in the name of M. L. Enterprises and sent the counterfoil of RTGS done through the State Bank of India, Beltola Branch to him. But, he found that no money was transferred in the SBI Account. The counterfoil of RTGS with seal was found to be fake. (x) In the month of April, 2018, the petitioner called the respondents that he would deposit a sum of Rs.45,00,000/ (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs) in his account and when he checked his account, but he found only Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand), deposited in his account. (xi) When the respondent informed the petitioner that he will lodge a police case then the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences and blocked his number and messages to avoid returning of remaining amount of money. 8. Now the questions, to be decided by this court are:- (i) Can this court embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, so set forth in the FIR ? (ii) Can this court make an roving enquiry to see whether the ingredients of the offences, under which the FIR has been registered, are made out while investigation is yet to be completed ? (iii) Can this court come to a conclusion while the facts are disputed and hazy and the picture is not clear ? 9. To answer these questions we have to go over to the precedents. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in : (2007) 12 SCC 1 , The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 9. To answer these questions we have to go over to the precedents. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in : (2007) 12 SCC 1 , The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the 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 such magnitude that they 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 proceedings at any stage” 10. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 , made the following observation :- “11. 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.” 11. 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.” 11. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the power to quash the criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has observed as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) 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. 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. 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; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 12. Keeping the aforesaid propositions of law in mind while the case of the petitioner is examined, the submissions, so advanced by Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, left this Court unimpressed. Keeping the aforesaid propositions of law in mind while the case of the petitioner is examined, the submissions, so advanced by Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, left this Court unimpressed. This Court is not entitled to embark upon a roving enquiry as to the correctness of the allegation, at this stage, while dealing with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as held in the case of Neeharika (supra). Here in this case the facts that have been placed before this court are incomplete and also hazy. as investigation has not yet been completed. Through Mr. Agarwal tried to persuade this Court that no ingredients of the offence under Section 468/471/420 IPC are made out, yet, this Court is handicapped to examine the same in their true perspective, whether legal or factual, without sufficient materials in view of incomplete materials placed before this court as has been pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Awadh Kishore Gupta(supra) and in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami(supra). 13. From a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances so set forth in the FIR, which is sought to be quashed here this petition, when taken at their face value, this court left unconvinced that no cognizable offence is made out there from. In fact and prima facie, the factual foundation of a cognizable offence appears to be laid in the FIR, and once a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR, this Court cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. The Police have a legal right to investigate the case once a cognizable offence is made out in the FIR/Complaint. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 , wherein, following its earlier decision in State of W.B. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 , it has been held therein that High court cannot decide the issues arising out of the case like an investigation agency or/an appellate authority by little realizing that it was exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 , it has been held therein that High court cannot decide the issues arising out of the case like an investigation agency or/an appellate authority by little realizing that it was exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha [ AIR 1982 SC 949 ], it has been held that “the right of inquiry by police is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie discloses the commission of such an offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. 14. I have carefully gone through the case laws referred by Mr. Agarwal and I find that in proposition of law laid down in the said cases proceeds on their own facts and circumstances and none of the facts and circumstances are similar to the facts and circumstances herein this case. In view of above, and also in view of the discussion and findings recorded here in above, and in view of the propositions of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Awadh Kishore Gupta (supra) and in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), Neeharika Infrastructure (Supra) and Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (supra) we afraid, the ratio laid down in the referred cases, including Bhajan Lal (supra) by Mr. Agarwal would come into his aid. 15. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Stay, if granted earlier, stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own cost(s). Case Diary, if any; be sent back to the I.O. of the case immediately.