ORDER : 1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.c. have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.184/2020 registered at Police Station Banar, Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC. 2. From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that complainant Raghunath Singh submitted a written report before Police Station, Maha Mandir, Jodhpur stating inter alia that on 9.12.1993, his father had purchased a part of land admeaduring 3 bighas and 15 biswas, out land bearing Khasra No.167 admeasuring 46 bighas and 15 biswas, situated in Gram Digari, in the name of the complainant- Ragunath who was aged about 12 years at that time, from one khatedar Pirsingh son of Moti Singh through joint sale deed, which was registered on 09.12.1993 in the office of Sub-Registrar II, Jodhpur. Khatedar Pir Singh executed the sale agreement in favour of complainant-Ragunath, making the complainant owner of agricultural plot No.7. It was further averred in the complaint that the complainant since then, is having ownership rights and has been enjoying possession over the land. 3. As per the complaint, the complainant recently came to know from one Dilip Singh that one Mohan Singh (accused-petitioner) had met with Dilip Singh (complaint's acquaintance) and told that he is the owner of agricultural plot No.7 situated in Khasra No.167/2 and also showed his willingness to sell the plot. When Dilip Singh asked for the documents showing ownership of Mohan Singh over the disputed land, he was shown by Mohan Singh a copy of registry dated 09.07.2020. Petitioner-Mohan Singh had received a sum of Rs.25,000/-from Dilip Singh as advance consideration and provided him with a written receipt. After making enquiries about the ownership of agricultural plot in question, Dilip Singh came to know that the plot in question is a purchased property of complainant since year 1993. Thereupon, Dilip Singh contacted the complainant who then came to know that accused-petitioner Mohan Singh by making accused-petitioner Shravan Singh, a power of attorney holder of Chhatar Singh, had executed the registry in his favour in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Jodhpur. Accused-petitioner Shravan Singh had gotten the power of attorney notarised from notary public on 7.8.2003. 4. Thereupon, Dilip Singh contacted the complainant who then came to know that accused-petitioner Mohan Singh by making accused-petitioner Shravan Singh, a power of attorney holder of Chhatar Singh, had executed the registry in his favour in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Jodhpur. Accused-petitioner Shravan Singh had gotten the power of attorney notarised from notary public on 7.8.2003. 4. The complainant on the basis of above mentioned documents enquired and came to know that Chhatar Singh had passed away way back in the year 2002 and that he had not executed any general power of attorney during his lifetime. It was further stated in the complaint that after the death of Chhatar Singh, the registered sale deed held by petitioner-Mohan Singh is a forged document which has been created by him. It was further stated in the complaint that accused-petitioners Mohan Singh and Shravan Singh, in order to make this fake and forged document had taken aid of accused-petitioners Arjun Singh and Megha Ram who had signed the document as witnesses. On 26.07.2020, when Dilip Singh came to know about the above factual scenario, he contacted Mohan Singh and told him that the sale deed, on the strength of which, he was selling the land is a completely forged document. Accused-petitioner Mohan Singh on being confronted about the document by Dilip Singh was told by him that he is rescinding the agreement to sell the aforesaid plot. He further told Dilip Singh to return the photo copy of the sale deed and the advance receipt which had been given to him. However, the petitioner did not return the money received as advance consideration. Accused-petitioners Mohan Singh, Shravan Singh, Arjun Singh, Megha Ram and Devi Singh had conspired with each other and created a forged general power of attorney in the name of a dead person and using the same, had executed sale deed in favour of Mohan Singh, in order to grab the land (agricultural plot No.7) belonging to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioners with an ulterior motive by respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents (registry, sale deed and the power of attorney) are genuine. Learned counsel further contended that the dispute in the present case is purely of civil nature which has been given a colour of criminal case by respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents (registry, sale deed and the power of attorney) are genuine. Learned counsel further contended that the dispute in the present case is purely of civil nature which has been given a colour of criminal case by respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that the investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation on three occasions into the matter, had proposed a negative final report. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the investigation was reopened and during re-investigation conducted for extraneous reasons, the petitioners have been found to be guilty of the offences alleged against them by the investigating agency. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside by the court. 7. Per contra, learned Public prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after conducting investigation into the matter, the offences against the petitioners have been found to be proved. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the investigating agency, during investigation found that the documents i.e. the sale deed and the power of attorney are forged and had been created by the petitioners, with a view to grab the land of the complainant-respondent No.2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even otherwise, the genuineness of the documents, if any, is a matter of investigation, which can only be gone into by the investigating agency. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence and thus, the police has to register the FIR which cannot be termed to be an abuse of process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant jointly submitted that the FIR and the investigation conducted pursuant thereto, reveals commission of cognizable offence and therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous petitions deserve to be dismissed by this Court. 9. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. 9. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 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 Court illustrated as under:- “(a) where the allegations made in the First InformationReport 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; (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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 11. Having gone through the contents of the FIR and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners is based on certain documents i.e. power of attorney and sale deed made in their favour and the registry executed on strength of such documents. The investigating agency during the course of investigation has found that the above-mentioned documents to be forged and had been created by the petitioners, with a view to grab the land of the complainant respondent No.2 i.e. agricultural plot No.7 situated in Digari. Even otherwise, it is for the investigating agency to find out whether the documents on which the petitioners rely to contend that they have not committed any offence, are forged or genuine on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation. The investigating agency has found commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners to be proved. 12. In the opinion of this Court, availability of recourse to civil remedy cannot be a ground to casts doubts or raise question about the averments contained in the FIR. In case, the prosecution fails to prove the charges levelled against the petitioners before the competent criminal court, the consequences will ensue. 13. This Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate at this stage to scan the entire material produced before it in extenso and record findings of definitive character for quashing the FIR. The Court is of the firm view that the perusal of the FIR and the averments contained therein, disclose commission of cognizable offence and it is well settled that the Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, is not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or genuineness of the allegations levelled against the accused petitioners. 14. In view of above, this Court does not find the instant case to be a fit case for quashing the FIR by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 15. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous petitions fail and stand dismissed. 16. A copy of this order be placed in each file.