JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Murty, the learned counsel appearing along with Mr. Amritansh Vats the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. R.R. Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Town Police Station, Daltonganj P.S.Case No.84/2017, corresponding to G.R.Case No.753/2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau. 3. The First Information Report was lodged by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that two cases are already pending against the petitioner which were filed by her father Shri Sripati Singh; that the petitioner was sent to jail under the charges u/s 420 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistate, through a warrant and the petitioner has submitted an application for bail; that the petitioner, in the bail application is the first party and Ms. Khushboo Singh is the second party in an agreement in which the signature of Ms. Khushboo Singh has been shown. Whereas, Ms. Khushboo Singh contends that she has not entered into any sort of agreement with the petitioner; that the petitioner has forged and faked the documents, in which the forged signature of Ms. Khushboo Singh is shown, with the objective of troubling, cheating and damaging Ms Khushboo Singh and to take advantage in the case filed by the father and with the intention to mislead the Hon'ble Court; that Ms. Khushboo Singh was informed about the alleged agreement by her father, Shri Sripati Singh, over phone and when her father asked if she has entered into any kind of agreement with the petitioner then she told her father that she has not entered into any agreement with the petitioner. When she received the copy of the agreement by mail, she saw that her signature on the document is fake and forged; that the bail application which is submitted by the petitioner, which is also given to the advocate of the father of Ms. Khushboo attached to the agreement, it can be clearly seen that the document is fake and forged in which the signature of Ms. Khushboo is also fake and forged. It can be clearly seen that the petitioner has an objective of damaging and causing troubles to Ms. Khushboo attached to the agreement, it can be clearly seen that the document is fake and forged in which the signature of Ms. Khushboo is also fake and forged. It can be clearly seen that the petitioner has an objective of damaging and causing troubles to Ms. Khushboo Singh by forging her signature; that the petitioner in future also can do this type of forgery and causing of troubling Ms. Khushboo and with the objective of causing fraud, can do this type of forgery and faking of signature and make documents to his use; that Ms. Khushboo Singh is depositing a photocopy of the alleged agreement by the petitioner so that the verification of the signature of Ms. Khushboo can be done. 4. Mr. Murty, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the court at Daltonganj in one another matter and during appearance in that matter the police came before this petitioner with regard to this matter and thereafter only the petitioner came to know about the present case. He submits that the police officers have not acted in proper way and that is why the learned court has also reprimanded the officer concerned and the order has been passed by the court in Complaint Case No.1833 of 2015 dated 21.8.2017 contained in Annexure-S/4 in the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that a detailed affidavit has been filed by this petitioner in the concerned court which is contained at page 39 of the main petition. By way of referring this he submits that how the fabricated, concocted and forged document has been disclosed in this affidavit. He further submits that the petitioner has also been accused in another two matters which were the subject matter before this Court and the said petitions were allowed by this Court and subsequently O.P.No.2 took that order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dropped section 420 IPC allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Lastly, Mr. Lastly, Mr. Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when no case under section 420 IPC is made out at best this is a case under section 471 of the IPC and he submits that in the light of section 195 Cr.P.C the entire allegations are false and this Court may interfere to quash the criminal proceeding. He further submits that signature was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata by the order of the court and the FSL Kolkata opined that original documents were required for correct appreciation and to come to clear finding on the point of the signature of the O.P.No.2. He further submits that O.P.No.2 at her own motion sent the signature for verification before one of the FSL's private laboratory situated at Pune. He submits that this has been done at her own and has got no relevance. By way of referring the orders passed by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.2374 of 2017 which has been disposed of by order dated 6.09.2017 observing therein that F.I.R has been instituted the criminal law is automatically set into motion and investigating agency are authorized to take further steps. He further submits that under section 195 sub clause (b)(ii) precludes of taking cognizance. 5. Per contra, Mr. R.R. Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioner of forging the signature which is the subject matter of investigation and police is still investigating the matter. He further submits that the petition filed by the informant for sending the signature for FSL verification at Kolkata has been rejected which has been challenged by the O.P.No.2. He further submits that it has been sent for re-examination by order of the learned A.D.J., at Daltonganj however, this argument of Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 has been disputed by Mr. Murti, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that since no coercive measures order passed by this Court by order dated 22.08.2017 the matter has not been investigated further and the petitioner was not called upon to cooperate in the investigation however, the investigation can be concluded at the earliest if the petitioner will cooperate. 7. 6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that since no coercive measures order passed by this Court by order dated 22.08.2017 the matter has not been investigated further and the petitioner was not called upon to cooperate in the investigation however, the investigation can be concluded at the earliest if the petitioner will cooperate. 7. In view of he above facts and submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. On perusal of the FIR it appears that there is allegation of forged signature and fabricating documents against the O.P.No.2. The FSL report was the subject matter before this Court in Cr.M.P.No.2374 of 2017 which was disposed of by the order dated 06.09.2017 and the observation of this Court is clear that once first information report has been instituted the criminal proceeding automatically sets into motion and it is for the investigating agency to investigate the allegations made and subsequent steps thereafter be taken. The finding has already been recorded therein which is helping the petitioner. Thus, finding with regard to FSL is also there in Cr.M.P.No.2374 of 2017 of this Court so far the argument of Mr. Murty with regard to applicability of section 420 IPC and 471 IPC are concerned that is subject matter of investigation. The police has not investigated the matter and not submitted charge sheet as yet and only after the investigation it will come which sections are applicable under the facts and the contents as alleged in the FIR. The argument of Mr. Murty, the learned counsel with regard to section 195 Cr.P.C is also not required to be answered by this Court at this stage in view of the above fact that the investigation is still going on and it is well settled that at the stage of investigation section 195 has no application. A reference may be made to the case of “M. Narayana vs. State of Karnataka”, AIR 2004 SC 555 . This Court after looking into the FIR is not convinced that this is a case of interference and for quashing of the FIR, there are parameters of quashing the FIR and case of the petitioner is not coming under those parameters so far the case of the petitioner for quashing the FIR is concerned. 8. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.2150 of 2017 is dismissed. 9. 8. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.2150 of 2017 is dismissed. 9. Interim order is vacated. 10. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.