JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned First Information Report No. 86 of 2022 registered with Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned First Information Report. Initially, the FIR was registered in the offence under Section 285 of IPC, Section 436 of IPC was added during the investigation. 2. Heard Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta with Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 3. According to the First Information Report dated 10.02.2022, the present petitioner – accused had committed mischief by throwing a bottle of explosive substance in the house of the informant, respondent no. 4 on 06.01.2022, and, thereby, caused the destruction of the dwelling house of the respondent no. 4 and this incident can also be seen from the CCTV footage. 4. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the State submitted that according to the instructions of the Investigating Officer, sufficient evidence has been found against the present petitioner so far during the investigation and investigation is still in progress. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this matter; he is an innocent person; the impugned First Information Report has been falsely lodged against the present petitioner, as the husband of the informant-respondent no. 4 used to molest the petitioner due to his perverted sexual preferences and when, the petitioner stopped talking and meeting with Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, the husband of the informant, the impugned First Information Report has been lodged with false allegations; the wife of the petitioner has also made a complaint on 14.02.2020 to the Police Station, Rajpur District Dehradun, however, no action has been taken till date, and, there is not even a prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 436 of IPC. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4/informant opposed the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and submitted that the cognizable offence against the petitioner-accused is disclosed in this matter; merits of the case cannot be tested at this stage and the Investigating Agency should be permitted to complete the investigation. 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 436 of IPC. Section 436 reads as follows:- “436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.—Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. An offence under Section 436 of IPC has following essentials: (i) The accused committed mischief; (ii) He did so by fire or any explosive substance; (iii) The accused did so with the intention to cause, or knew that it was likely to cause, the destruction of any building; (iv) Such building was ordinarily used as place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. 9. It is well settled that during the investigation of the matter, the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not touch the merit of the case and evidence cannot be appreciated to the effect that the allegations in the F.I.R. are false. 10. In Pepsi Food Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (36) ACC 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits, but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. 11. 11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of its jurisdiction:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 12. In ‘M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others’, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. In ‘M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others’, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: 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 cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); 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 and a rarity 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. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. During or 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 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; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” “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.” 13. It is well settled that at the time of investigation, merits of the case cannot be tested and it is wholly impermissible for this Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations. This Court would not also examine the genuineness of the allegations since this Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this matter it cannot be said that there are no allegations against the petitioner. Apart this, learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to show at this stage that allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused. Therefore, this Criminal Writ Petition (No.779 of 2022), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, fails, and, accordingly, is dismissed. 15. Since, the investigation is in progress, this Court makes it clear that the observations made earlier are only for the disposal of this application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These observations will not influence the investigation or the trial.a