JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K. Tari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, the learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. None appears for the Private Respondents. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ”the Code”) for quashing of the FIR dated 12/12/2019 registered vide Naharlagun P.S. Case No.201/2019 under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The Petitioner herein is an Advocate by profession. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had been wrongly implicated in the instant case inasmuch he was not involved in any manner with the transaction which took place between the Complainant and National Service Engineering Corporation as well as its proprietor Sri Hibu Nobin. 5. Taking into consideration that the law is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the Court is to look into the FIR as it stands without any addition or subtraction and to see as to whether any offence is made out. It is under such circumstances, that this Court takes into consideration the FIR in question. 6. The allegations made in the FIR is that in the month of September, 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between one Taniya Bulo, the Respondent No. 4 alongwith the Respondent No. 5, who happens to be the proprietor of National Service Engineering Corporation for installation of solar plant under the name of work as “Railway Crossing road side by side set small solar plant and railway plant and railway outer signal in the Upper Subansiri District” at the cost of Rs.4,51,50,000/-and in that regard an MOU was entered into for purchase of 301 numbers of solar plant at the cost of 1,50,000/-each. It was also alleged that for doing that work, the Respondent No. 4 was informed by the Respondent No. 5 that the Respondent No. 4 had to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs and in accordance therewith an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited through cash which was accepted by the Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, it has been further alleged that after receiving the advance amount, the required solar plant was never delivered to the Respondent No. 4 for the said work. 20 lakhs and in accordance therewith an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited through cash which was accepted by the Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, it has been further alleged that after receiving the advance amount, the required solar plant was never delivered to the Respondent No. 4 for the said work. It has been also alleged that the Respondent No. 4 thereafter made detailed enquiries and came to learn that the firm namely M/S National Service Engineering Corporation is nothing but a fraud company having no record of work being executed and the so-called proprietor in connivance with Sri Michi Nibo, the petitioner herein happened to chose soft target like the Respondent No. 4 and lured them with an offer of huge money in return of investment in work which was not in existence. It was further mentioned in the said FIR that the Petitioner herein who claimed to be an Advocate of the said firm of the Respondent No. 5 is also a part and parcel of the kind of cheating and fraud. Further to that, it has been mentioned in the FIR that when the Respondent No. 4 came to learn after the enquiry, he asked the Respondent No. 5 to return him the money and the Respondent No. 5 informed the Respondent No. 4 through a Letter of Intimation dated 21/2/2019 asking the Respondent No. 4 to communicate with the Petitioner herein. It has been further alleged that the Respondent No. 4 approached the Petitioner, who assured the Petitioner that the money would be returned by March, 2019 and the Petitioner also took responsibility for refund of the money. Further to that, it has been alleged that when the Respondent No. 4 had again approached the Petitioner to remind him about the assurance, the Petitioner wrote an agreement stating to produce the Respondent No. 5 within the month of October, 2019. However, despite saying so the Petitioner started avoiding phone calls of the Respondent No. 4 and on the other hand threatened the Respondent No. 4 of filing FIR against him. It has been alleged that there is a big racket being operated by the Respondent No. 5 under the aid and advice of the Petitioner in collusion. It is under such circumstances, upon the FIR being filed on 7/12/2019 Nahalagun Police Station Case No. 201/2019 was registered under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged that there is a big racket being operated by the Respondent No. 5 under the aid and advice of the Petitioner in collusion. It is under such circumstances, upon the FIR being filed on 7/12/2019 Nahalagun Police Station Case No. 201/2019 was registered under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On a specific query being made to the learned APP as to what is the stage of investigation, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the investigation is at the nascent stage and on account of interim order passed to the effect that no coercive measure should be taken against the Petitioner herein, the Investigating Agency have not been able to put the investigation to a logical end. In that regard, the learned APP further draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in AIR (2021) SC 1918 wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph No 23 of the said judgment had laid down the various parameters wherein the FIR can be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no case under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the Petitioner herein, taking into consideration when the money of Rs. 20 lakh was paid, the Petitioner was nowhere involved. In fact, he further submits that there has been any allegation of inducement made by the Petitioner which resulted the complainant/Respondent No. 4 parting with his valuable property. 9. Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR and the respective submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it proper to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd(supra) and more particularly paragraph No. 23 and its sub-paragraphs which stipulates the various parameters within which this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 can quash an FIR. Paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :- “23. Paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are 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 encyclopaedia 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. 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. 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/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 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.” 10. A perusal of the above quoted paragraph of the judgment would show that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases (not to confused with the formation in the context of death penalty) and what is to be looked into is as to whether the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence or offence of any kind. If it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or offence of any kind, the Court under Section 482 should not embark on any further enquiry inasmuch as the said space is reserved for the Investigating Agency. 11. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration as to whether any prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence has been made out in the said FIR. The contents of the said FIR have already been mentioned in detail hereinabove. 12. It appears from the record and also from a perusal of the FIR that certain documents were enclosed to the said FIR, which included (i) the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30/9/2018, (ii) the Agreement dated 20/2/2019, (iii) Letter of Intimation dated 21/2/2019 and (iv ) Agreement dated 20/12/2019. 13. 12. It appears from the record and also from a perusal of the FIR that certain documents were enclosed to the said FIR, which included (i) the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30/9/2018, (ii) the Agreement dated 20/2/2019, (iii) Letter of Intimation dated 21/2/2019 and (iv ) Agreement dated 20/12/2019. 13. From a perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding, which was a part of the documents filed alongwith the FIR, it reveals that there was an agreement entered into between National Service Engineering Corporation through its proprietor, the Respondent No. 5 and the complainant, the Respondent No. 4 incorporating various terms and conditions. On the date of the said agreement itself, it appears from Clause No.9 that an amount of Rs. 10 lakh was paid by the complainant to the Respondent No. 5 by way of a Cheque bearing No.151216. The agreement dated 20/2/2019 shows that the Respondent No. 5 had admitted taking a loan on 17/2/2019 of an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs from the complainant i.e. the Respondent No. 4 herein and against that the Respondent No. 5; BMW Car bearing registration No.AR 01L 1184 was kept as a collateral security for the loan and the loan was to be repaid in full on 20/3/2019. It appears from the document that the Petitioner had put his signature which is duly admitted. It further appears that on 20/9/2019, the Petitioner had given an undertaking and taken full responsibility to produce the Respondent No. 5 within the month of October, 2019. It however, appears that there are specific statements made in the FIR to the effect that the Complainant on making enquiry came to learn that the Petitioner in connivance and in collusion with the Respondent No. 5 have been choosing people and luring them to offer huge amount of money in return of investment in work. This aspect of the matter in the opinion of this court, prima facie shows that there is an existence of cognizable case made out. 14. Taking into consideration that the investigation is at a very nascent stage and judicial interference at this stage would scuttle the investigation. It would also be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to the abuse of the process of law insofar as the Petitioner is concerned at this stage. 15. It would also be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to the abuse of the process of law insofar as the Petitioner is concerned at this stage. 15. On the other hand, after the investigation if the Investigating Officer finds that there is no substance in the FIR 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. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code and consequently the instant petition stands dismissed. 16. Before parting with the record, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim order certain interim protection was given to the Petitioner by directing the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive measure against the Petitioner. In view of the dismissal of the instant proceedings, the Investigating Officer may proceed with the investigation of the Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 201/2019. However, no coercive step be taken against the Petitioner for a period of 15 days from today thereby enabling the Petitioner to seek such protection as envisaged under law.