JUDGMENT : This petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Shri Gollo Tukia for quashing the complaint case No. 51/2021 (M/s North India Engineering Vs. Shri Gollo Tukia) under Section 463/464/465/466/469/471/474 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Capital Complex, Yupia. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under :- “On 01.02.2019, Rural Works Department of Government of Arunachal Pradesh has issued 2 (two) NITs: (i) C/o road from Khunglo to Rupung Village for a sum of Rs. 19,42,00,900/- (ii) C/o road from SRDP-NE from Papu-Yupia, Potin, 25 km point to Daktehoj. In the first tender process, the petitioner, being the authorized agent of M/s Gepong, had participated, but the respondent was declared to be the successful bidder for both the works and ultimately, the work was allotted to him for execution. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondent, who was a Class-I Contractor under the Public Works (roads) Department of Assam, has resorted to fraudulent practice in order to obtain its registration certificate. Then, the petitioner enquired about some document and filed one RTI on 01.01.2020 and thereafter, came to know that the documents, upon which the respondent had relied upon to get the Class-IA Contractor Registration Certificate, are forged and fabricated documents. Thereafter, the petitioner reported the matter to the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, vide order dated 18.03.2020, barred the registration of the respondent. The said order of the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, was challenged in WP(C)/5039/2020, wherein, by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2020, this Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent on the strength of fabricated documents, got registered as Class-IA contractor under the PWD (roads), Assam and, thereafter, on the basis of such registration, participated in the tender process in Arunachal Pradesh and has been awarded the works, C/o Khunglo to Rupung Village for a sum of Rs. 19,42,00,900/-and C/o road from SRDP-NE from Papu-Yupia, Potin, 25 km point to Daktehoj. 19,42,00,900/-and C/o road from SRDP-NE from Papu-Yupia, Potin, 25 km point to Daktehoj. The conduct of the respondent led to the violation of rights of other participating tenderers including the petitioner and the petitioner then filed a writ petition, being WP(C)/3454/2021, praying for a direction to the authorities to initiate appropriate action against the respondent which came for consideration before this Court on 02.08.2021, and this Court was pleased to issue notice. Thereafter, the respondent filed one Criminal Complaint Case No. 51/2021, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Capital Complex, Yupia, to take revenge on the petitioner and put up a defence in the WP(C)/3454/2021 by abusing of process of law as well as the process of the Court. Upon the said complaint, the learned Court below took cognizance of the offence on 31.08.2021 and issued summon to the petitioner for appearance. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the said complaint has been filed by the respondent alleging that the documents which were received by the petitioner from the Office of Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, vide RTI reply dated 01.01.2020, were fake and fabricated. The respondents alleged that such documents were never submitted by him while applying for the Class-IA Registration Certificate and that the same were fabricated by the petitioner. In support of such contention, the petitioner has enclosed the documents, which he had submitted while obtaining the renewal Registration Certificate, dated 09.01.2019. But the respondent has failed to show the documents that it had submitted while obtaining the original Registration Certificate dated 24.09.2018. As such, the documents received by the petitioner vide RTI reply dated 01.01.2020, has not been disputed and refuted and as such, the allegation made by him 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 any case and the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable and on the basis of which no prudent can ever reach a conclusion and to believe the same. Therefore, the petitioner approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Therefore, the petitioner approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. L. Thungon, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent got his name registered as Class-IA Contractor under the PWD (roads), Assam, on 24.09.2018 and he has submitted some documents relating to his experience. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one RTI Application and obtained the documents submitted by the respondent along with the petition for registration and there the petitioner found that he has submitted documents relating to his experience for execution of work which he has never executed and he got the same confirmed from the Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and having received the said RTI reply he had reported the matter to the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, who thereafter, cancelled the registration of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Capital Complex, Yupia, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has fabricated those documents and thereafter, the respondent preferred one writ petition against the cancellation of his registration and accordingly, the said order of the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, has been set aside. The allegation leveled against the petitioner in the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Capital Complex, Yupia, is inherently improbable and even if taken in its entirety, the same fails to disclose a prima-facie case against the petitioner. Mr. Chaudhury further submits that since the allegation made in the complaint case No. 51/2021, is absurd and inherently improbable, and that the respondent has instituted the case before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Yupia only to take revenge of filing WP (C) 252 (AP) 2020, before this court and C.R. Case No. 24/2020, against the respondent before the Court of learned JMFC, Yupia, and as such, malafide intention of the respondent is writ large and the case is squarely covered by point No. 8.1 (b), (c) and (g) of the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and therefore the C.R. Case No. 51/2021, filed by the respondent may be quashed by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that there is business rivalry between the petitioner and the respondent and they can go against each other to any extent. Further Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) relates to police case and the present case is a complaint case and in that view of the matter, the ratio in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) cannot be applied to the complaint case. It is the further submission of Mr. P. K. Tiwari, that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and at this stage, the veracity of the complaint, lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Capital Complex, Yupia, cannot be determined and the same will be unfolded during trial only and the respondent will established the same against the petitioner during trial. Mr. Tiwari further submits that here the facts are disputed, and this court, while dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide which one is true and that is the function of trial court only. Therefore, Mr. P. K. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel, contended to dismiss the petition being not maintainable. In support of his submissions, Mr. P. K. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel, has referred following case laws, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq, (2005) 1 SCC 122 , M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) to make good of his submission. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also I have carefully gone through complaint case No. 51/2021 and the record of the learned Court below. 7. reported in (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) to make good of his submission. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also I have carefully gone through complaint case No. 51/2021 and the record of the learned Court below. 7. A careful perusal of the complaint case, No. 51/2021, reveals following circumstances:- (i) That M/S North India Engineering is a firm having its registered Office at Emchi, Doimukh, District-Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh and registered with the PWD (roads), Assam as Class-IA contractor vide Certificate of Registration Bearing No. APWRD/R/IA/GEN/2018-19/41015, dated 24.09.2018. (ii) The registration was done through online process and the respondent has enclosed some documents along with the application, so show that he has experienced in some work in Arunachal Pradesh. (iii) The petitioner of this case, obtained the said documents by filing RTI Application and thereafter, he also filed RTI Application before the Rural Works Department of Government of Arunachal Pradesh to ascertain whether the contract work certificate enclosed with the application for registration by the respondent are correct or not. Then the Rural Works Department, in the said RTI Application, replied that the said contract has not been awarded to the respondent. (iv) The petitioner then reported the matter to the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, and thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PWD (roads), Assam, cancelled the registration of the respondent vide order dated 18.03.2020. (v) But, on being challenged in a writ petition, No. WP(C) No. 5039/2020 filed by the respondent, this Court has set aside the order dated 18.03.2020, having been passed without following the principles of natural justice. (vi) Thereafter, the petitioner filed one complaint case, being C.R. Case No. 24/2020, wherein the petitioner has falsely claimed to have received some documents from the Office of the PWD Assam, in response to RTI application, which the respondent has never furnished and the said documents were unauthenticated and do not bear the mark of authentication and signature or seal of the PIO -Cum-Superintending Engineer which is mandatory. (vii) The respondent has alleged that those documents were never furnished by the PIO and the same were created by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has denied the assertion made in the complaint case No. 51/2021. (vii) The respondent has alleged that those documents were never furnished by the PIO and the same were created by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has denied the assertion made in the complaint case No. 51/2021. It is his pleaded case that the said assertion in complaint case No. 51/2021, is absurd and inherently improbable, and that the respondent has instituted the case before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Yupia only to take revenge of filing WP (C) 252 (AP) 2020, before this court and C.R. Case No. 24/2020, against the respondent before the Court of learned JMFC, Yupia. 9. A careful perusal of the documents placed on record, specially Annexure-5 Colly, of the complaint Case No. 51/2021, and more particularly, the completion certificate dated 05.02.2019, annexed at Page No. 79 of the complaint case, which was issued by the Executive Engineer, Capital Division, PWD, Itanagar on 05.02.2019, shows that there is substance in the submission so made by Mr. Choudhury. It is not in dispute that the respondent has submitted 2 sets of documents, one set while obtaining the original registration certificate, dated 24.09.2018, and thereafter, another set for renewal of registration certificate, dated 09.10.2019. The petitioner of this petition has obtained the documents by filing RTI application, which the respondent has submitted along with his petition for obtaining original registration certificate. The documents, which were submitted by the respondent along with the complaint case No. 51/2021, were submitted by the respondent at the time of obtaining renewal registration certificate. The complaint case is filed on the basis of the documents, the respondent has enclosed with the petition for renewal registration certificate. 10. But, it appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is directed towards the disputed question of facts. Moreover, the facts discussed herein above appears to be hazy and a detail enquiry is necessary to ascertain the acceptability of the same. Now, what left to be seen is whether this court, while dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., can embark upon such an enquiry. 11. Moreover, the facts discussed herein above appears to be hazy and a detail enquiry is necessary to ascertain the acceptability of the same. Now, what left to be seen is whether this court, while dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., can embark upon such an enquiry. 11. That, with respect to the disputed question of facts, there is a well settled proposition of law through a string of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra), Bhajan Lal,(supra) The State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) that the same (disputed question of facts) cannot adjudicated by the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), while dealing with the power and scope of quashing the FIR/Complaint petition Hon’ble Supreme Court, amongst other, has laid down following propositions :- (i) 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). (ii) 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; (iii) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (iv) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (v) 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; (vi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; (vii) 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; (viii) 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; 13. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. Vs. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2953 of 2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of apolitical opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. 14. In the case Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can be considered.” 15. In the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.” 16. The proposition of law that can be crystallized from the discussion made here in above is that this court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, it can be said that the complaint did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence at this stage while the facts are hazy and also disputed. Moreover, the petitioner could not make out very exceptional circumstances to interfere with the case at the very threshold as held in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Whether the factual foundation of the offences alleged as made in the complaint would be sufficient to disclose the ingredients of the offences against petitioners has to be considered at the stage of trial. Such an enquiry cannot be embarked upon at this stage as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Ramveer Upadhyay (supra) Mohd. Akram Siddiqui (supra) Arvind Khanna (supra). 17. Thus, in view of above discussions and finding and also in view of the submissions advanced at the Bar, I find the petition devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost.