ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the Respondent-State. 1.1 By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR, bearing C.R. No. 11214020241241 of 2024, registered with Kamrej Police Station, Surat Rural, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code along with all the consequential proceedings arising there from. 2. In the FIR, Respondent No. 2-the First Informant, namely Sarfaraj Allahrakha Multani, has stated that he purchased the lands situated on the outskirts of mauje Village: Kathorgam, bearing Survey/Block No. 431, admeasuring H.A. Sq. Mts. 02-15-24, Survey/Block No. 434, admeasuring H.A.Sq.Mts. 01-67- 67 and Survey/Block No. 458, admeasuring H.A. Sq. Mts. 01- 59-35, which are old tenure, agricultural lands. The First Informant purchased all these lands, by way of registered sale deeds, in the year 2019 and thereby, he became the owner thereof. 2.1 It appears that thereafter, since, the First Informant wanted to sell the aforesaid lands, he informed his friend Yakub Ibrahim Soni about the same, who introduced the petitioner to a broker, namely Mohammed Sajid Abdul Azij Sakkarwala in the year 2022 and in turn, Mr. Sakkarwala introduced the First Informant to the present petitioners. As the petitioners were agreeable to purchase the lands in question, a deal was struck to purchase the aforesaid lands for Rs.12,00,00,000/- and thereby, the terms and conditions to purchase the aforesaid lands were finalized. 2.2 On 16.03.2022, a memorandum-of-understanding was executed and it was agreed that out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,00,000/- for the purchase of the aforesaid lands, Rs.8,00,00,000/- shall be shown as the sale consideration, whereas, the remaining amount, i.e. Rs.4,36,00,000/- as per jantri and the remaining Rs.3,64,00,000/- were agreed to be given by way of property. Here, it may be noted that, at the relevant point of time, there were some civil litigation pending in respect of the aforesaid lands, i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 01 of 2022 and R.T.S. Revision Application No. 37 of 2022 before the Collector, Surat. 2.3 Thereafter, a bank account was opened in Bank of Baroda, Shahpur Branch, Surat, and sale deeds, in respect of all the three lands, were executed on 13.03.2023. 2.3 Thereafter, a bank account was opened in Bank of Baroda, Shahpur Branch, Surat, and sale deeds, in respect of all the three lands, were executed on 13.03.2023. It is alleged in the FIR that the aforesaid sale deeds were executed, as the petitioners had promised to pay the amount of consideration within the period of one or two months, thereafter. It is the case of the First Informant that the mobile number, which was linked with his bank account opened with Bank of Baroda, Shahpur Branch, was not receiving any SMS in respect of the transactions done in his bank account. He, therefore, inquired with the Bank of Baroda and he found that his balance in the aforesaid account was in minus. When, the First Informant asked the present petitioners about making the payment in regard to the sale of the aforesaid lands, he was informed that amount of Rs.3,77,42,553/- as per the jantri, was deposited in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda between 19.07.2022 to 19.10.2022 by way of 21 different transactions and the same were withdrawn by way of self drawn cheques on the same day, i.e. the day on which such amounts were deposited, by way of 17 different cheques or transactions. 2.3.1 When the First Informant made inquires with the bank, he came to know that such amounts were withdrawn by way of self drawn cheques. However, since, the cheque book issued by Bank of Baroda was with the First Informant, he made inquiry about the same and he came to know that on 02.07.2022 an application with a fake/forged signature of the First Informant was made for issuance of a cheque book. He also came to know that an application had also been given to change the mobile number linked with the account of the First Informant maintained with Bank of Baroda and thus, by making fake/forged signatures of the First Informant and by using the cheques, the petitioners, with the help of other accused persons, siphoned off Rs.3,72,49,000/-. He also came to know that an application had also been given to change the mobile number linked with the account of the First Informant maintained with Bank of Baroda and thus, by making fake/forged signatures of the First Informant and by using the cheques, the petitioners, with the help of other accused persons, siphoned off Rs.3,72,49,000/-. 2.4 On coming to know about the same, the First Informant approached the present petitioners and he was told by the petitioners that they have withdrawn the amount deposited in the bank account of the First Informant and that they are not going to give remaining amount of consideration, as agreed by them, and that the First Informant is not going to get any money from them. Being aggrieved with the same, the First Informant made an application to D.G.P., State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. 2.5 It is stated in the FIR that the aforesaid three parcels of lands, mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, were decided to be sold to the petitioner for the consideration of Rs.12,00,00,000/- and out of that, Rs.4,36,00,000/- were to be paid towards consideration, as per the jantri, by way of cheque, Rs.3,64,00,000/- were to be paid in the form of property and the remaining Rs.4,00,00,000/- were to be paid in cash. However, the First Informant was paid only Rs.70,00,000/- and he was assured that the remaining amount shall be paid, after once the sale deeds were executed. It is, further, stated in the FIR that as the father of the First Informant was seriously ill, he was engaged in looking after him and after his father died, the First Informant was busy with the post-death rituals and thus, by taking the advantage of the situation, the present petitioners, in connivance with the other accused persons, hatched-up a conspiracy and withdrew the amount, after depositing the same in the bank account of the First Informant maintained with Bank of Baroda, by way of different cheques and therefore, the impugned FIR is filed by him. 3. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Jadhav, for the petitioners submitted that upon a similar application made by the First Informant, Dy. 3. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Jadhav, for the petitioners submitted that upon a similar application made by the First Informant, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Office of the I.G. (Rural), Surat Range, had carried out the investigation and had submitted his report and as per the said report, during the course of investigation nothing was found, which would support the case of the First Informant, till the date of preparation of the aforesaid report, i.e. up to 15.09.2023. Therefore, when the report was already filed on 15.09.2023, subsequent registration of the FIR on 28.05.2024 is nothing but the bause of the process of law. 3.1 During the course of hearing, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, tendered additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, which is separately produced vide Page Nos. 194 to 227 to this petition and out of that the affidavit is only of two pages, whereas, the remaining pages are the annexures/documents, i.e. photocopies of different cheques and other documents, which according to learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, were collected ed by the police during the course of investigation. 3.1.1 On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that the First Informant, himself, had remained present before the Bank of Baroda on 03.08.2022 and had given an application for SMS facility and he also had produced his Aadhar Card and thereafter, on the very same day, the First Informant had given another application for change of his signature. According to learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, in fact, the entire amount mentioned in the impugned FIR is withdrawn by the First Informant, himself, and the petitioners have played no role in the alleged offence. It was, therefore, submitted that the filing of the impugned FIR is nothing, but, the abuse of the process of law and such misuse of criminal mechanism at the hands of Respondent No. 2-the First Informant may not be permitted and therefore, intervention of this Court is required. 3.2 According to learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, the lands in questions are disputed lands for which some civil and revenue litigations are going on and the First Informant, himself, has stated in the FIR that he had undertaken to see that the lands in question are cleared and thereafter only, the same are to be sold to the present petitioners. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, the lands in questions are disputed lands for which some civil and revenue litigations are going on and the First Informant, himself, has stated in the FIR that he had undertaken to see that the lands in question are cleared and thereafter only, the same are to be sold to the present petitioners. However, the First Informant could not honour his undertaking and during the said period the impugned FIR is registered. 3.3 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, though, could not bring any material on the record of this petition, under the instructions received from the learned Advocate, Mr. Jadhav, submitted that as per the knowledge of the petitioner, an FIR of similar nature has already been registered against the First Informant and therefore, the version given by him in the impugned FIR cannot be believed and therefore also, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 3.4 It was also submitted that the personnel of the concerned bank, himself, has made an endorsement on the application form filled-up by the First Informant on 03.08.2022, indicating that the concerned person, i.e. the First Informant, had personally remained present and as per his request, SMS facility was made available qua the bank account maintained by the First Informant with the Bank of Baroda and in fact, the present petitioners had never gone to the said Bank and therefore, the present FIR is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned APP, Mr. Sharma, strongly opposed this petition and submitted that the present petition is filed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, which is filed in connection with siphoning of huge amount of Rs.11,30,000,00/-. 4.1 It was submitted that, at present, the investigation is going on and since, there is word against word and as the bare reading of the impugned FIR, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence of siphoning of huge amount running into crore of rupees, this Court may neither stay the investigation nor pass any prohibitory orders and this petition may be dismissed, as the plain reading of the impugned FIR, prima facie, indicates that the present petitioners have actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and hence, this petition may not be entertained. 4.2 It was submitted that so far as, the report dated 15.09.2023, which is produced on record at Annexure-C and is relied on by the learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, is concerned, it is stated, therein, that till the date of preparation of the said report, i.e. upto 15.09.2023, police did not found any material against the accused persons, however, that would not meant that the same was the final report. Further, as the impugned FIR has already been filed and the concerned police authority is conducting the investigation, this Court may not curtail the same, as the investigation may include and may not be limited to sending the cheques etc. to the FSL, so as to verify, as to whether the impugned FIR is genuinely registered or the same is an abuse or misuse of the process of law. 4.3 Learned APP, Mr. Sharma, also submitted that only recording statement of the concerned persons cannot be said to be the completion or the only mode of investigation and an investigation may include various modes to investigate the crime in question, more particularly, when the amount mentioned in the FIR is huge and runs into Rs.11,30,00,000/- and therefore, considering the fact that the FIR is registered on 28.05.2024, i.e. almost before 20 days, and as the investigation is going on, this Court may not entertain this petition and thereby, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record and I found that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the FIR. There is some force in the submissions made by the learned APP that there is word against the word and therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be investigated thoroughly. Considering the allegations leveled against the present petitioner, so also the fact that same is essentially dealing with the question, as to whether the signatures on the cheques, which were used to withdraw the huge amount of Rs.3,72,49,000/- are false/forged or not. Further, the impugned FIR also reveals that the petitioners had agreed to transfer some properties towards consideration in favour of the First Informant and there is also mention of payment of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in cash and out of which only Rs.70,00,000/- are paid, whereas, the remaining Rs.3,70,00,000/- are not paid to the First Informant. Even if, the version of learned Sr. Further, the impugned FIR also reveals that the petitioners had agreed to transfer some properties towards consideration in favour of the First Informant and there is also mention of payment of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in cash and out of which only Rs.70,00,000/- are paid, whereas, the remaining Rs.3,70,00,000/- are not paid to the First Informant. Even if, the version of learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saiyed, is believed, the same would be in respect of the withdrawal of amounts by way of cheques, but, the same would not be qua the other allegations leveled in the impugned FIR and an FIR is required to be thoroughly investigated in respect of the allegations made, therein, and not only in respect of a part of the FIR. The report dated 15.09.2023, produced by the petitioners on the record, is only in respect of the alleged transactions, whereby, the total amount of Rs.3,72,49,000/- was withdrawn by the petitioners. Even the said report cannot be said to be conclusive report for the reason that the said report in its last paragraph specifically indicates that the same depicts the picture only up to the date of the preparation of the said report, whereas, the impugned FIR is registered after more than six months from the date of submission of the aforesaid report. Further, as is rightly pointed out by the learned APP, Mr. Sharma, that the investigation may required the IO to send the samples of cheques in question, hand-writing of the First Informant as well as the petitioners and other co-accused and therefore, when a bare reading of the FIR, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with the on going investigation at this stage, especially, when the amount involved runs into crore of rupees. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. 6. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged.