Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 in person. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Nagar P.S. Case No. 248 of 2022 dated 29.4.2022 registered under Sections 416/ 417/ 120-B of the I.P.C. filed by the informant (respondent no. 7). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare reading of the F.I.R., there is absolutely no ingredient of any offence either under I.P.C. or under any other law for the time being in force under which case has been constituted. The allegation as mentioned in the F.I.R. is against Ms. Meena Kashyap and one Mr. Ashutosh Guru. Against others, particularly, the present petitioner, there is nothing transpires from the F.I.R. The contents of the F.I.R. is very short, which is as follows: – ^^eSa jkts'k dqekj flag iq= Jh voèk fcgkjh flag] jksM uñ- 1] lrsUnz uxj] vkSjaxkckn eqdnek dk;e djrk gw¡A ¼1½ fnukad 20-7-21] 2-12 ihŒ,eŒ ij ¼6206412932½ ehuh d';i ¼9337195669½ us eq> ij vkb&Qksu dj vius dks ,l,QvkbZvks dk vfèkdkjh cudj ncko cuk;kA ¼2½ esjs }kjk mldh tkudkjh ysus ij oks cksyh dh vk'kqrks"k xq# dkjiksjsV viQs;lZ gsM us mls vkb&Qksu djus dk ncko cuk;k Fkk ds osnkUrk fjlksUlsal esa bUVZu gSaA ¼3½ ;g dsl fuEufyf[kr ds f[kykQ gSa ¼d½ ehuk d';i] bUVZu] osnkUrk 6206412932 ¼c½ vk'kqrks"k xq# gsM dkjiksjsV viQs;lZ 7798985875 ¼l½ osnkUrk fjlksUlsal dEiuh jkUMh;k ihvks Hknzd] ih,l Hknzd :Yj izfrfufèk ¼1½ vfuy vxzoky] ps;jeSu] osnkUrk fjlksUlsal ¼2½ uohu vxzoky mikè;{k osnkUrk fjlksUlsal ¼3½ oyoar jkBkSj lhbZvks osnkUrk vkb&Qsdj lHkh dk irk xzke jUMh;k Fkkuk & Hknzd ¼:Yj½ ftyk & Hknzd ¼vksMhlk½** 4. Counsel further submits that the informant is admittedly the employee of management of the M/s Vedanta Limited having Employee Code No. 2247. Counsel submits that the present case has been filed by the private respondent in retaliation of his dismissal from the service dated 16.03.2021 followed by the departmental inquiry. 5. Counsel further submits that petitioner is Vice-Chairman of the Company and does not have any consent with the allegations. Counsel further submits that informant was working as Senior General Manager (Mines) of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited. 6. 5. Counsel further submits that petitioner is Vice-Chairman of the Company and does not have any consent with the allegations. Counsel further submits that informant was working as Senior General Manager (Mines) of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited. 6. After the said Corporation was taken over by the Vedanta Group Limited on 4.8.2016, the said informant was transferred from Orissa to Karnataka w.e.f. 4.1.2021. The informant become aggrieved and started litigating with Company. He filed a civil suit against his transfer and also filed injunction in the said suit for staying his transfer but his application was dismissed on 10.3.2021. 7. Counsel further refers and relied on the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 . In the conclusion of the said case, paragraphs 120 and 121 are most relevant, which are as follows: – “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/ latches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made timebound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/ Station Diary/ Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. 121. With the above directions, we dispose of the reference made to us.” 8. Counsel for the State submits that after going through the F.I.R. admittedly, it transpires that there is not a whisper against the present petitioner and bare reading of the F.I.R. does not constitute any offence against petitioner. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the informant appearing in person, vehemently opposes the counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has already filed a bunch of petitions alleging against the Company Officials but here in the present case, those bunch of allegations are not there. 10. It transpires to this Court that those bunch of allegations are not been entertained at any level relating to the present case is concerned. 11. Informant further submits that on his complain before the Income Tax and Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Officials have started inquiry. 10. It transpires to this Court that those bunch of allegations are not been entertained at any level relating to the present case is concerned. 11. Informant further submits that on his complain before the Income Tax and Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Officials have started inquiry. He submits that behind every wrong, the role of petitioner being the Chairman are there and he may not be exonerated by this Court. 12. Upon hearing the parties and going through the records, this Court is of the view that upon bare reading of the F.I.R., there is absolutely no allegation against the present petitioner. The petitions about which private respondent is raising before this Court are not the part of the present F.I.R. Under law, there is no restriction on any person to file F.I.R. more than once, if different offences constituted against any person at different time. No reason assigned for delay in filing the F.I.R. 13. In the light of the facts mentioned above, decisions and the conclusions made in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , I am of the view that the present case has been filed with delay, where no explanation has been mentioned and not only that the dismissal of the respondent no. 7 has taken place on 16.3.2021 and the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.4.2022. As such, filing of F.I.R. against the present petitioner is only with a view to create pressure and harass him. As per the version of the private respondent, the Income Tax Officials have already came into action against the Company and their Officials. Enforcement Directorate Officials are also free to take action, if they found anything wrong against the Company and its Officials. But at least by virtue of this F.I.R., nothing comes out. 14. In this view of the matter, this F.I.R. is fit to be quashed so far as petitioner, Mr. Navin Agrawal is concerned.