ORDER : 1. By way of filing present criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have prayed that FIR No. 469/2021 registered at Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner for offences under Section 457 and 380 IPC may be quashed and set aside and the proceeding emanated thereto may also be quashed as the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 2. From the perusal of the FIR, this Court finds that complainant Tajaram in the FIR dated 03.12.2021, alleged that his son is doing business in Mumbai and therefore on 29.10.2021, he along with his wife went to Mumbai from Bikaner to celebrate Deepawali with the family of his son. On returning from Mumbai on 24.11.2021, the complainant-respondent No. 2 found that the locks of the main door and rooms of his house situated in Pabubari, Naya Shahar, Bikaner were broken and cash to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- along with various gold and silver articles (description whereof has been given in the FIR) had been stolen. The complainant-respondent No. 2 in the FIR alleged that after inquiring from persons residing in the neighbourhood and relatives, he found that present petitioners i.e. Mangilal, Shivlal, Sushil, Mona and wife of Sushil-Koushaliya had broken the locks in the night of 10.11.2021 and had stolen the cash, gold and silver articles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely roped in a criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 24 days from the date of alleged incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the property/house from which cash, gold and silver articles were stolen, had been acquired by late father of petitioner No. 1 way back in the year 1956. It was submitted that the property had been inherited by the petitioner No. 1 and his wife, by way of registered will dated 07.04.1980 executed by petitioner No. 1’s late father Shri Kalu Ram. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant-respondent No. 2 under the garb of frivolous and false complaint/ FIR is pressurising the petitioners to handover the possession of entire property. To substantiate aforesaid contention, learned counsel submitted that the electricity connection of the property is in the name of petitioner No. 2. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant-respondent No. 2 under the garb of frivolous and false complaint/ FIR is pressurising the petitioners to handover the possession of entire property. To substantiate aforesaid contention, learned counsel submitted that the electricity connection of the property is in the name of petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 2 is in close relation of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioner and his family members had allowed Smt. Jamna Devi (mother in law of respondent No. 2) to stay on the first floor of the property. However, after death of Smt. Jamna Devi, petitioner No. 1 requested respondent No. 2 to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the first floor of the property, to which respondent No. 2 did not agree and continued illegal possession over the property. 5. In a nutshell, learned counsel submitted that the case of the respondent No. 2 is completely unbelievable; the impugned FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive, only to pressurise the petitioners to succumb to the demand of the respondent No. 2 to hand over the possession of the property to him and recognise him as the owner of the property. It was therefore submitted that the FIR and continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant present before this Court along with Investigating Officer, PS Naya Shahar, Bikaner opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that thorough investigation has been conducted by the investigating agency and commission of a cognizable offence is found to be proved against the petitioners. It was further submitted that the investigating agency has powers to register an FIR and conduct investigation in cognizable offences and the same cannot be termed as abuse of process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the FIR had been lodged after 24 days since the petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 2 are relatives and the parties were thus trying to solve the dispute amicably. It was thus prayed that the criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be rejected by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. It was thus prayed that the criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be rejected by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court illustrated as under: “(a) 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. (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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. (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (d) 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. (e) 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. (f) 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. (f) 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. (g) 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.” 10. This Court had directed learned Public Prosecutor to procure the factual report and keep the Investigating Officer present before this Court with case diary. 11. In compliance of the directions passed by this Court, case diary and factual report was submitted for the perusal of the Court. 12. From the perusal of the case diary, it is reflected that father of the petitioner No. 1 namely Kalu Ram had two brothers namely Kana Ram and Bhikha Ram. The father of petitioner No. 1 had purchased 1,000 sq. ft. land in Pabubari, Bikaner over which the property in question is situated. The mother-in-law of the complainant namely Jamna Devi was niece of petitioner’s father, who became widow at an early age. Out of love and affection, all the three brothers, Kalu Ram, Kana Ram and Bhikha Ram had given half of the land to Jamna Devi, who had constructed the property in question and started living in the same. Shri Kalu Ram prior to his death in the year 1980, had executed a will in relation to the property, in favour of petitioner No. 1 and his wife Kesari Devi. Smt. Jamna Devi however, continued to be in possession of the property till her death in the year 2003 and after her death, possession of the property was taken over by her daughter and complainant-respondent No. 2. The investigation made so far based on the statements of relatives of the parties and persons residing in the neighbourhood shows that when the complainant-respondent No. 2 was out of Bikaner in the month of November 2021, the petitioners had taken possession of the property by breaking the locks. The investigation made so far based on the statements of relatives of the parties and persons residing in the neighbourhood shows that when the complainant-respondent No. 2 was out of Bikaner in the month of November 2021, the petitioners had taken possession of the property by breaking the locks. The investigating agency has found that a cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners as they had broken the locks and stolen cash, gold and silver articles belonging to complainant-respondent No. 2. 13. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, precedent law and after carefully perusing the case diary, this Court finds that prima facie allegations levelled against the petitioners and investigation made so far in relation to FIR No. 469/2021 disclose commission of a cognizable offence. It is well settled that the Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the correctness or genuineness of the allegations levelled against accused persons. This Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it is neither required to scan the entire material produced before it nor record its definite findings, after examining the documents/material, for quashing the impugned FIR. 14. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned FIR since, it is difficult to hold that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.