JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in connection with Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 354, 379, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. Though, Section 34 has wrongly been mentioned as Section 349 of the Indian Penal Code in paragraph-1 (i) at page-4 of the brief and in prayer portion at page-24 of the instant writ petition. 3. Though some additional prayer was also made for quashing some other F.I.Rs but it is evident from the order No.11 dated 26.04.2023, that the petitioners have confined their prayer in this Writ Petition for quashing the F.I.R. of Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019. Hence, this Writ Petition is confined to the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. of Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 only. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were the accused persons of the said case and they have cheated and dishonestly induced the informant/complainant to give his property on lease to them by making the informant/complainant, believe that they will use the property as hospital but instead they by way of cheating, have constructed residential complexes on the leased premises. There is further allegation that on 20.05.2019 the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons outraged the modesty of the complainant, committed theft of Rs.5,000/- and gold chain and also voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and her husband. The informant/complainant filed Complaint Case No.2528 of 2019 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and consequent upon the same being referred to police, Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 has been registered and the investigation was going on but vide order dated 02.09.2022, no coercive order has been passed against the petitioners by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari- learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and the petitioner No.2 was doing duty at Kalyan Hospital, Arki, District-Khunti and a certificate has been issued by the Hospital Management in the name of respondent No.7-the investigating officer of this case. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari- learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and the petitioner No.2 was doing duty at Kalyan Hospital, Arki, District-Khunti and a certificate has been issued by the Hospital Management in the name of respondent No.7-the investigating officer of this case. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has acted in criminal conspiracy with the complainant/informant, her son, her husband and others. It is further submitted that vide order No.14 dated 09.10.2023 it was ordered that the respondent State shall file supplementary counter-affidavit disclosing about the stand of the petitioner about presence of the petitioner No.2 at Khunti on the date of occurrence on 20.05.2019 but the State has not filed any supplementary counter-affidavit. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.2 has also lodged Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.234 of 2019 against the son of the informant/complainant wherein the petitioner No.2 has stated that the son of the informant/complainant has cheated the petitioners of Rs.79,00,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi be quashed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. of Jaganathpur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 paragraph-80 of which reads as under:- “80. 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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain terms has held that 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. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submits that the only ground upon which the petitioners seek quashing of the F.I.R. is that the allegations made against them are not genuine and are false which is not permissible in law in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has already filed an affidavit dated 28.11.2022 in this writ petition contending therein that he procured the C.D.R. of the accused and to ascertain their alibi of being not present at the place of occurrence at the alleged time of occurrence, hence, this Writ Court should not interfere at this stage by quashing the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) that 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. There is no dispute that the averments made in the complaint which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of the case has been registered; if treated to be true in its entirety, the same is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 420,323, 354, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court the mere ground that the petitioners have an alibi, is not a sufficient ground to quash the F.I.R. in its entirety and the petitioners can take the plea of alibi at the appropriate stage before the appropriate authority or court as the case may be. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 02.09.2022 stands vacated. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.