JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed with common prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners- Aditya Jajodia and Rajiv Jadodia are the Managing Directors of M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited. The petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Ladia is the Director of the company and the petitioner- Mayank Bothra is the authorized representative of the said company. The petitioner- Mayank Bothra approached the informant who looks after the business of his father for supply of M.S. Billet and being induced by the petitioner- Mayank Bothra, the informant transferred ?1,80,00,000/- in total on different times through bank transactions to the account of M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited- a public limited company. Later on, on 09.03.2021 suddenly the petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Ladia, sent one e-mail enclosing a letter in which there was reference of two forged pro-forma invoices and on the basis of the same, Rs.28,15,200/- was demanded from the company of the informant and in the pro-forma invoices, wrong rate was mentioned and the time period for delivery of material was extended. There was no reference in the forged document regarding number and date of the purchase order of the company of the informant and the forged signature of the proprietor of the informant company was put on the pro-forma invoices to show that the materials has been accepted. Along with the FIR, the informant annexed the copy of the forged documents. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra submits that the informant has not gone to police station with clean hands as he has suppressed the fact that his father prior to institution of the FIR lodged Complaint Case No. 192 of 2022 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was withdrawn. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra submits that the informant has not gone to police station with clean hands as he has suppressed the fact that his father prior to institution of the FIR lodged Complaint Case No. 192 of 2022 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was withdrawn. It is next submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that prior to lodging of the FIR, M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited has filed Money Suit No. 158 of 2021 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the father of the informant and for wreaking vengeance, this false criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that paragraph no.11 of the complaint reveals that the Money Suit No. 158 of 2021 was filed on the basis of two debit notes which were alleged to be fraudulent ones; by the informant. It is then submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that the father of the informant approached National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench but the same was dismissed and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739 , paragraph nos. 25, 28 and 29 of which reads as under:- 25. The suit for recovery of money was instituted by the son of the appellants against the first respondent in 2013. The complaint alleging offences under the Penal Code was filed by the first respondent belatedly in 2016. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants' son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son. As stated by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants' son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son. A plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients necessary for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code are not made out. 28. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 29. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that this is also a case of essentially civil nature and a cloak of criminal offence has been given. Hence, this FIR is fit to be quashed. 6. In this connection, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, paragraph nos. 28, 37 and 45 of which reads as under:- “28. 6. In this connection, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, paragraph nos. 28, 37 and 45 of which reads as under:- “28. In the instant case, the complaint levelled against the Appellants herein is one which involves commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. While a criminal breach of trust as postulated under section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860, entails misappropriation or conversion of another's property for one's own use, with a dishonest intention, cheating too on the other hand as an offence defined under section 415 of the Penal Code, 1860, involves an ingredient of having a dishonest or fraudulent intention which is aimed at inducing the other party to deliver any property to a specific person. Both the sections clearly prescribed ‘dishonest intention’, as a pre-condition for even prima facie establishing the commission of said offences. Thus, in order to assess the relevant contentions made by the parties herein, the question whether actions of the Appellants were committed in furtherance of a dishonest or fraudulent scheme is one which requires scrutiny. 37. Although, there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well as criminal nature, each of which could be pursued regardless of the other. In the instant case, the actual question which requires consideration is not whether a criminal case could be pursued in the presence of a civil suit, but whether the relevant ingredients for a criminal case are even prima facie made out. Relying on the facts as discussed in previous paragraphs, clearly no cogent case regarding a criminal breach of trust or cheating is made out. 45. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely concluded that the present case clearly falls within the ambit of first, third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the above said judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under section 482 CrPC. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under section 482 CrPC. We find that there has been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby essentially impart a criminal color to it.” (Emphasis supplied) Submits that this case is squarely covered by the principle of law reiterated in the said case. 7. Lastly, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, paragraph no. 16 and 17 of which reads as under:- “16. By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondent's allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its impact a little later. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. The same is the position with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjit Batra (supra), the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that this FIR has been filed suppressing the earlier complaint as well as series of civil proceeding between the parties. Hence, on this score also, the entire criminal proceeding arising out Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 is liable to be quashed. 8. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners- Sanjay Kumar Ladia, Aditya Jajodia and Rajiv Jadodia besides adopting the argument of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra, further relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors. along with analogous cases reported in (2013) 6 SCC 740 , paragraph nos. 27 and 39 of which reads as under:- “27. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the disputes arose with regard to the joint venture agreement between the parties have been finally adjudicated by the Company Law Board and the High Court, but Respondent 1 instead of complying with the directions of the Company Law Board and High Court started filing frivolous criminal cases against the appellant, which were either quashed or stayed by the High Court. The learned counsel seriously assailed the conduct of the Superintendent of Police, who directed reinvestigation in a matter which was finally closed. The learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench failed to note that the entire efforts of the respondent in prosecuting the appellant are serious abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel referred to the allegations made in the complaint petition and submitted that the whole object of filing those complaints are nothing but to pressurise the appellant and to harass him. The learned counsel then submitted that the whole procedure in the proceedings initiated against the appellant is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel referred to the allegations made in the complaint petition and submitted that the whole object of filing those complaints are nothing but to pressurise the appellant and to harass him. The learned counsel then submitted that the whole procedure in the proceedings initiated against the appellant is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the conduct of Respondent 1 is deplorable and the same is contemptuous amounting to deliberate obstruction of the judicial proceedings and an abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel lastly contended that the Division Bench has erroneously set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the issue was pending in this Court. 39. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404], observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case: (SCC p. 703, para 7) “7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.” Submits that since this is out and out a civil dispute and informant have approached both the NCLT and NCLAT and having lost both the places, have lodged this FIR for wreaking vengeance. 9. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General-III assisted by the two learned Special Public Prosecutors as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022. Learned Additional Advocate General-III drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 59 of the case diary, submits that during the investigation it is found that there are several documents which have been forged by the petitioners, the list of 12 of documents forged by the petitioners has been mentioned in paragraph no.59 of the case diary. Learned Additional Advocate General-III drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 59 of the case diary, submits that during the investigation it is found that there are several documents which have been forged by the petitioners, the list of 12 of documents forged by the petitioners has been mentioned in paragraph no.59 of the case diary. It is next submitted by learned Additional Advocate General-III that the petitioner- Mayank Bothra is absconding and the court concerned has issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and because of non-cooperating attitude of the petitioner- Mayank Bothra, as also the order of stay of the investigation passed, substantial progress could not be made so far in bringing the investigation of the case to its logical conclusion. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, paragraph no. 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., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 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. 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. 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) 11. It is next submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General-III that unlike the cases referred to by the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioners, this case is not a case simpliciter involving the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code rather this is a case where the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code relating to forgery of several documents is involved and in the investigation, the allegation of forgery of several documents have been found to be true. Hence, quashing of the FIR at the nascent stage will amount to illegality in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). Hence, quashing of the FIR at the nascent stage will amount to illegality in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding father of the informant approaching the NCLT and NCLAT are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that neither the NCLT nor NCLAT has dismissed the petition of the father of the informant on merits of the case. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that NCLT dismissed the petition because of pendency of prior dispute between the parties and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that this case involves the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code. As submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General-III; so far during the investigation of the case, it has been found that 12 numbers of documents have been allegedly forged by the petitioners and as one of the petitioner namely Mayank Bothra is absconding and has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court even after proclamation of the notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C., as also the order of stay passed in these cases, the investigation could not be brought to its original end so far. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) that Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. So far as the judgements relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are concerned; no doubt therein the settled principles of law have been reiterated but the facts of those cases are entirely different from the facts of this case in the sense that in this case during the investigation, which has been done so far, 12 number of documents have been found to be forged. It is the contention of the informant, that the earlier instituted Money Suit, by some of the petitioners is based on 2 forged documents. It is the contention of the informant, that the earlier instituted Money Suit, by some of the petitioners is based on 2 forged documents. By now it is a settled principle of law that if the documents being forged are filed in any judicial proceeding even then a separate prosecution for the same can be instituted even during the pendency of such legal proceeding without the procedure as envisaged under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being adopted and only in cases where the forgery takes place while the document is in custodia legis of the court concerned, then only the procedure envisaged under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to be adopted. But in this case, as already indicated above, since the further it has been committed before filing the forged documents in the said Money Suit, hence, the pendency of the Money Suit, will not be a bar to proceed ahead with the investigation of this case. So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the informant has suppressed the fact that his father earlier instituted complaint case which was later on return is concerned; section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays down the procedure to be adopted in case the complaint and the police case is filed in respect of the same offence. In this case, the earlier complaint was not filed by the informant. Under such circumstances, as in this case involves serious offences relating to forgery of documents and during the investigation of the case several documents have been found to be forged. Unlike the case of Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors. along with analogous cases (supra) in this case, the dispute was not finally decided by the National Company Law Tribunal. Rather, the National Company Law Tribunal, did not entertain the application because of priorly instituted dispute between the parties. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, did not entertain the appeal not on merits, but on the technical ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. Unlike the facts of the cases of the judgements relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, certainly this is not a case, where no offence is made out, even if the allegations made in the First Information Report is considered to be true. Unlike the facts of the cases of the judgements relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, certainly this is not a case, where no offence is made out, even if the allegations made in the First Information Report is considered to be true. Rather the allegations are specific and they carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, scuttling the criminal proceeding at this nascent stage will not be in the interest of justice rather the same will be unfair and illegal. 13. In view of the serious nature of allegations and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 is to be quashed at this nascent stage when the investigation is going on. 14. Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit is dismissed. 15. In view of the dismissal of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, the interim orders granted earlier are vacated. 16. In view of the dismissal of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, Interlocutory Application Nos. 6642 of 2023, 6639 of 2023, 6640 of 2023 and 6641 of 2023 are dismissed being infructous.