ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question crime in Crime No. 454 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 201, 110 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: The petitioner is a Government servant in the cadre of Police Inspector in the Home Department. The story would commence when the petitioner was posted as Police Inspector at Byatarayanapura Police Station. On 11-10-2021 while serving as Police Inspector in the said Police Station, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No. 247 of 2022 against one Santhosh Kumar for offences punishable under Sections 381 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer in the said case. During the course of investigation, in the said crime, a recovery of Rs. 72/- lakhs was made and was reported under PF Nos. 133/2022, 136/2022 and 141/2022. On 20-10-2022, it is the averment that, Crime No. 247 of 2022 was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kengeri gate Sub-Division. But again, the said crime was retransferred to the 2nd respondent/ Assistant Commissioner of Police, Byatarayanapura Sub-Division. 3. When things stood thus, the petitioner on 27-01-2023 was transferred out of Byatarayanapura Police Station and posted as Police Inspector, Anekal Police Station. On 27-02-2023, after the transfer of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate directed the 1st respondent Police to deliver the seized amount of Rs. 72/- lakhs to the custody of the officials of the Income-Tax Department. It is here the role of the petitioner surfaced. On 26-02-2023, the previous day of the said order, the petitioner carries a bag to Byatarayanapura Police Station which allegedly contained Rs. 72/- lakhs and placed the same in the Police Station. After the said money being kept in the Police Station, the officials of the Income- Tax Department visit Byatarayanapura Police Station and in the presence of the then Police Inspector and the panchas opened the bag and found Rs. 72/- lakhs consisting of various denominations of currency notes of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2000/- which also consisted of two bundles which did bear State Bank of India Branch seal and covering. 4. 72/- lakhs consisting of various denominations of currency notes of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2000/- which also consisted of two bundles which did bear State Bank of India Branch seal and covering. 4. Later, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration), Bengaluru in terms of his order dated 17-06-2023 appoints Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chickpet Sub-Division to conduct a preliminary enquiry as to why the amount was carried into the Police Station. Preliminary enquiry was conducted, petitioner was questioned and the report of the inquiry goes in favour of the petitioner, as the allegations were held to be not proved. Long after the conduct of preliminary enquiry and report being submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No. 454 of 2023 i.e., on 22-11-2023, by the 2nd respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Police, a different Assistant Commissioner of Police than the one who had conducted the preliminary enquiry earlier. It was for the afore-quoted offences. The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner had kept with him entire Rs. 72/- lakhs notwithstanding PF being drawn on it and did not deposit it to the State Treasury inter alia. The moment crime is registered, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court, on 24-11-2023, stayed further investigation against the petitioner. The said interim order of stay is operating even today. 5. Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor-I for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the crime is registered for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Act and Sections 409, 465, 201 and 110 of the IPC. All these would not even become applicable to the case at hand. There is no criminal misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He has handed over charge to the incumbent with all necessary documents including PF that was drawn of the amount. There is no warrant for the petitioner to carry the bags and keep them in the Police Station at a later point in time. This is a story that is brought out against the petitioner. He has handed over charge to the incumbent with all necessary documents including PF that was drawn of the amount. There is no warrant for the petitioner to carry the bags and keep them in the Police Station at a later point in time. This is a story that is brought out against the petitioner. He would further contend that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by an Assistant Commissioner of Police who clearly holds that there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner and he has not mishandled the PF of Rs. 72/- lakhs. He would submit that in the light of the findings in the preliminary enquiry, the crime against the petitioner ought not to have been registered. He would submit merely because notes of the denomination are different than that was seized earlier, it cannot become a crime against the petitioner. In all, he would seek quashment of the entire proceedings contending that permitting investigation against this police officer would become an abuse of the process of law. 7. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I Sri B.A. Belliappa would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court to the investigation materials threadbare. He would submit that the crime was registered on 12-10-2022 and seizure happens on the very day. The seizure mahazar was drawn in PF on three dates up to 20-10-2022. It is then the investigation was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The petitioner was issued notice to deposit the seized amount to the Treasury. Though reminders were sent, he never deposited the amount in the Treasury. Meanwhile he is transferred out of Byatarayanapura Police Station. Notice was issued to him to hand over charge and seized money and other articles. He never complies. Later when he comes to know that the Income Tax Department is filing application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. claiming the amount as belonging to it, he comes to the Police Station, keeps the money after about 4 months of seizure. 8. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I would submit that the Officer who conducted preliminary enquiry against the petitioner has deliberately favoured the petitioner. Therefore, against him a departmental inquiry is instituted for having favoured the petitioner. 8. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I would submit that the Officer who conducted preliminary enquiry against the petitioner has deliberately favoured the petitioner. Therefore, against him a departmental inquiry is instituted for having favoured the petitioner. In all, he would submit that these are all matters of investigation, which cannot be interdicted at this juncture, particularly when the offences are punishable under Section 7 of the Act or IPC offences inter alia. The offences would all crystallize only after conduct of investigation and filing of a final report. For the perusal of the Court, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I has placed all the materials in Crime No. 247 of 2022. Since interim order was granted just two days after registration of the crime, no investigation has taken place in Crime No. 454 of 2023. He would seek dismissal of the petition and permitting further investigation to go on. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts though are a matter of record in Crime No. 247 of 2022, the link in the chain of events are necessary to be noticed, as it would give a clear picture as to how the petitioner becomes an accused in Crime No. 454 of 2023. On 29-09-2022 an incident of theft is reported to the Byatarayanapura Police Station. The crime then comes to be registered before the Byatarayanapura Police Station in Crime No. 247 of 2022 on 12-10-2022. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer. The seizure of the amount happens in a staggered manner on three occasions. On 14-10-2022, part of the amount was seized which is drawn in PF 133 of 2022. On 18-10-2022 the second seizure happens, and it is drawn in PF 136 of 2022 and on 20-10-2022 the third seizure happens which is drawn in PF 141 of 2022. The total amount that was seized was Rs. 72/- lakhs, which is seized in Crime No. 247 of 2022. The investigation is then transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police by the order of the Competent Authority on 20-10-2022, the moment the third seizure happens. These are all matters on record. Therefore, from 14-10-2022 the events that placed were three seizures and an amount of Rs. 72/- lakhs, which is seized in Crime No. 247 of 2022. The investigation is then transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police by the order of the Competent Authority on 20-10-2022, the moment the third seizure happens. These are all matters on record. Therefore, from 14-10-2022 the events that placed were three seizures and an amount of Rs. 72/- lakhs being the seized amount and the investigation transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police one T. Kodandaram. 11. On 08-11-2022, noticing the facts that the petitioner had not deposited the seized amount to the Treasury, a notice was issued. The notice reads as follows: Even then, the amount is not deposited in the Treasury by the petitioner. A reminder is sent on 17-11-2022, to deposit the amount. The reminder reads as follows: This time also the petitioner does not deposit the amount in the Treasury. The third reminder comes about on 26-12-2022. The third reminder reads as follows: When this was also not honoured, the Investigating Officer issues a notice on 06-01-2023 directing the petitioner to appear before him with the PF that was seized. The said notice reads as follows: The petitioner does not appear. Second notice is issued on 23-01-2023 to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The second notice reads as follows: Even then the petitioner does not appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. 12. Pending appearance before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the petitioner was transferred from Byatarayanapura Police Station on 27-01-2023 and was directed to report at the Headquarters. A notice dated 02-02-2023 comes to be issued to the petitioner to hand over charge to the new incumbent including the seized money and other articles. The petitioner moves out of Byatarayanapura Police Station, but the seized amount does not move out of his possession. The Income-Tax Department had claimed over the seized amount which was marked as PF, as afore- quoted. An application appears to have been filed by the Income Tax Department before the learned Magistrate in Crime No. 247 of 2022 seeking seized amount to its custody invoking Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner learnt about this and comes to the Police station with the aid of some other person on 26-02- 2023 and keeps the seized amount in the Police station without handing over charge to the incumbent. 13. 13. What is to be noticed is, from 02-02-2023 till 26-02-2023 the petitioner did not hand over charge of the post of Police Inspector at Byatarayanapura Police Station notwithstanding the fact that he was transferred to Anekal Police Station. The concerned Court directs release of the seized amount to the custody of Deputy Director of Income Tax, as it was the amount belonging to the Income Tax Department. On 06-03-2023 statement of the complainant in Crime No. 247 of 2022 was recorded. The statement of the complainant reads as follows: “Complainant further statement: Hareesh Koppisetty S/o Prasad Rao, age 29 years, working as a businessman (Prawns trading) resident of 10-146 Batchala Street, Srikakulam, 532168, Ph.7680979787. Dated: 06-03-2023. I have been staying in this above address since my birth along with my parents. I have done B Tech in Mechanical Engineering and started prawns trading from 2019 along with my partner John Carmel. We buy the prawns from farmers of Bheemavaram and sell it to customers and retailers across Hyderabad and Bangalore. With respect to this we started a company Zoropie Garuda Pvt. Ltd. in HSR Lay-out in July 2022. As part of the trading of prawns me and my partner received around 75 lakhs over a period of 4 -5 months in 2022 and wanted to use it for our company Zoropie. Hence I got the said money from Hyderabad to Hoskote, Bangalore to my cousin Shekar’s place on the 20th of September around 12.10 a.m. (midnight) along with my driver Santosh in my Ford Endeavour Car Reg. No. AP 39 GU 1919. I had hired Santosh a resident of Kolar from around May 2022 as my personal driver. On 20th of September after reaching my cousin’s place in Hoskote, I got down of the vehicle and was waiting for the driver to park the vehicle. However, Santosh my driver after I got down drove the car away and switched off his phone. I couldn’t reach him and I panicked and approached the local police station who were of no help. After a while I received a voice message on Whatsapp around 2 a.m. from Santhosh that he was sorry for what he did. Later we tried reaching out to the family of Santosh and we didn’t get any lead about whereabouts of Santosh or the money that he stole from me. After a while I received a voice message on Whatsapp around 2 a.m. from Santhosh that he was sorry for what he did. Later we tried reaching out to the family of Santosh and we didn’t get any lead about whereabouts of Santosh or the money that he stole from me. Around 6 a.m. the stole vehicle, my Ford Endeavour was brought to my cousin’s house by towing people. On enquiring them they told Santosh my driver had left the vehicle in Bagalur area and had arranged for the towing to be done to my cousin’s place in Hoskote. I have the corresponding towing bill with me. Since the local police refused to take my complaint, I felt miserable and sought help from friends and family. One of our family friends introduced me to one person Lokanth Singh. Loknath Singh suggested us to meet Byatrayanapura Police Inspector Shankar Naik with our problem. On 24th of September my father Prasad Rao suffered brain stroke hence I had to leave for Manipal Hospital Whitefield. On the same day since I couldn’t meet Shankar Naik, Police Inspector, John Carmel my partner met Shankar Naik and Loknath Singh in Byatrayanapura Police Station. Before meeting Shankar Naik, Loknath had asked us to give 20 lakhs for Shankar Naik as he will help us get the entire lost money of 75 lakhs. On meeting Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector, he listened to John about the incident and collected information about Santosh my driver. Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector told John that since the offence had to be made as if it occurred in his limits, he would create a complaint with scene of crime as near Imperial Hotel Satellite Bus Stand, Byatrayanapura. And also Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector told John that he will mention that the lost money was obtained from selling of property which was not true. We had received just 7 lakhs from selling one property by John’s brother. Since we were in a vulnerable position John had to agree to it. Later after a few days I had to leave to Hyderabad along with my father. On 12th October, 2022 John was called to the Byatrayanapura Station and since I was not present in Bangalore Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police inspector insisted John to sign instead of me even though the name of the complainant was me Hareesh. Later after a few days I had to leave to Hyderabad along with my father. On 12th October, 2022 John was called to the Byatrayanapura Station and since I was not present in Bangalore Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police inspector insisted John to sign instead of me even though the name of the complainant was me Hareesh. Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector pressurized John to sign as by then the police had already caught the brother-in-law of Santosh. John who was not keeping well, yielded and signed for the FIR late night on that day. With this Cr. No. 247 of 2022 u/s 381 and 420 of IPC, was registered in Byatrayanapura Police Station against Santosh and with me as the complainant even though I was in Hyderabad. John narrated this incident later to me. After a couple of days John and I got to know that the Byatrayanapura Police had arrested Santosh and hence we approached Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector who said that only a part of the money was recovered. Later we got to know that Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector had also got vehicles of Santosh’s brother Sampath and his friend Chennakeshava to Byatrayanapura Police Station. When we approached Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector, he was behaving in a rude manner with us and asked us to wait for 2-3 days. Then we got to know that Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector had manipulated many things in the case and also since my father was not keeping well, I left for Hyderabad and am appearing before the new investigation officer ACP, Kengerigate to-day on 6-03-2023 as per his notice.” The complainant clearly narrates that the petitioner had demanded bribe to release Rs. 72/- lakhs. The bribe amount that he demanded was Rs. 20/- lakhs. Further statements are recorded on 06-03-2023 of another person and the complainant also gives his 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the learned Magistrate in Crime No. 247 of 2022. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant reads as follows: In the month of May 2022 I hired Santhosh Kumar from Kolar as my personal driver. In September 29th around 11.55 when we were on our way to by cousin place I was carrying 75,00,000/- cash in the car. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant reads as follows: In the month of May 2022 I hired Santhosh Kumar from Kolar as my personal driver. In September 29th around 11.55 when we were on our way to by cousin place I was carrying 75,00,000/- cash in the car. When we reached the place he was supposed to park the car and I got down from the car and the driver fled with the car and cash around 12.04 A.M. After that myself and my cousin went to the Police station next to the Hoskote toll: There the police told that it doesn't come under their jurisdiction and then we went towards city limits police station. By that time Santhosh left a voice message to my number stating that I am sorry, I did mistake again his phone was switched off. Then in the morning around 05.30 A.M one person came with towing slip with the photograph of Santhosh and one other person, along with the car stating Santhosh had handed over the vehicle near Bagalur bus stop. Then I contacted one of my partner Mr. John he suggested us to wait for some time. Later the previous day Mr. Santhosh had dropped wallet by oversight and same was handed over to me by security guard and in that we could find 8 contact numbers. We started to call those numbers but they replied that they were not in contact with Santhosh from 3months. As we got information about him through online then we got to know about him through the agency that he had bad remarks. Then they helped us in knowing his house address. Then we went to the address and spoke to his parents and they requested to give 2 days time to sort out the issue. Then Mr. John suggested us to contact BR Pura Police for further assistance through a 3rd party and that 3rd party demanded to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- and he told us to meet us on 24.09.2022 at BR Pura Police Station. On the same day I was suppose to go to the police station but my father got with brain stroke on the same day and we admitted him on the same date to the hospital. On behalf of me Mr. John met the C.I of BR. Pura Police Station along with 3rd party. On the same day I was suppose to go to the police station but my father got with brain stroke on the same day and we admitted him on the same date to the hospital. On behalf of me Mr. John met the C.I of BR. Pura Police Station along with 3rd party. The C.I had told to give 3-4 days to time to sort out the issue. On 7th of October the person who was brother in law of Santhosh was caught by BR Pura Police. 12th October early morning I received a call from Santhosh old number requesting to release his brother in law so that he will hand over the entire cash. Same was intimated to john in turn John intimated the same to Shankar naik and SI Rahul Reddy. On the same day late night Shankar naik and SI Rahul Reddy insisted Mr John to sign the complaint on behalf of me. On 14th October Santhosh was caught, then 15th October I came back to Hydrabad to Bangalore and met Shankar naik. Later I enquired the next procedure with Shankar naik and he intimated as that sum of Rs.60,00,000/- has been recovered from Santhosh and the balance will be recovered in a couple of 3-4 days. After 2-3 days Santhosh's brother had called me and intimated that they have given Rs.72,00,000/- to the police and balance of 3,00,000/- will be given in few days. Then I went to Shankar naik informed the same to him then he asked two days time. The 3rd person intimated us that Mr. Shankar naik was demanding half of the amount and the same was refused by us. Next day Shankar naik called me and asked for the proof of identity later he referred to the income tax department. Then Income Tax department had sent a notice to which I have replied. By then the Income Tax Department had recovered the amount from the Police Station and taken to its custody in terms of the order passed by the concerned Court. 14. On all these factors, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) orders a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner for all the events narrated hereinabove. The preliminary enquiry results in exoneration of the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry is conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 14. On all these factors, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) orders a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner for all the events narrated hereinabove. The preliminary enquiry results in exoneration of the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry is conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The findings in the preliminary enquiry go in favour of the petitioner. Certain observations become germane to be notice and they read as follows: “................ Paragraph 9 supra of the report would read that on 26-02-2023 the previous Police Inspector i.e., the petitioner comes to the Police Station and hands over the amount that was seized, to the incumbent officer one Ninganagouda A Patil, who verifies the said mount and takes to his custody. This is captured in the CCTV. Merely because denominations are different he cannot be held guilty is what is the result of the preliminary enquiry. Notwithstanding the preliminary enquiry being in favour of the petitioner, another enquiry is directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, by a different Assistant Commissioner of Police who is said to have nailed the petitioner. It is submitted that, on the score that the earlier preliminary enquiry was erroneously held in favour of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry is directed to be conducted against the said Assistant Commissioner of Police one K.C. Giri who had submitted an erroneous enquiry report in favour of the petitioner. The communication directing initiation of departmental enquiry against the said officer reads as follows: The second preliminary enquiry conducted results in a report on 21-11-2023. This report, as observed hereinabove, nails the petitioner. The observations in the report are as follows: “................ The very next day, the crime is registered in Crime No. 454 of 2023. The offences are the ones punishable under Sections as afore- quoted. 15. In the teeth of the afore-narrated maze of facts, what is discernible is, that the petitioner did not deposit the amount seized to the Treasury after marking it as property folio. Hence, it would prima facie reveal that the entire amount of Rs. 72/- lakhs was in the custody of the petitioner from 20-10-2022 till 26-02-2023 for about 4 months and the earlier Enquiry Officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry has himself observed that CCTV footage clearly indicates that the petitioner comes to the Police Station long after his relieving, keeps the amount of seizure and goes away. 72/- lakhs was in the custody of the petitioner from 20-10-2022 till 26-02-2023 for about 4 months and the earlier Enquiry Officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry has himself observed that CCTV footage clearly indicates that the petitioner comes to the Police Station long after his relieving, keeps the amount of seizure and goes away. On the next day the Income Tax Officials take custody of the said amount. The marked difference between the PF that was entered on seizure of the amount and the return of it there was complete change of denominations of notes. 16. The seizure panchanama that was drawn on 3 days i.e., on 14-10-2022, 18-10-2022 and 20-10-2022 revealed bundled notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and were from Axis Bank. But, the amount that is kept back in the Police Station after four months by the petitioner was of different Bank and completely of different denominations. Therefore, two factors would emerge - one, the petitioner keeping the amount with him without depositing it to the Treasury and the other, tampering with PF by changing the denomination of notes. These factors prima facie would meet the ingredients of the crime that is alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the matter would require investigation, in the least, as the factors are glaring and clear insofar as ingredients of offences are concerned. It would here become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35 wherein it is held as follows: “9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P. 2020 SCC Online All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683 in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672 after considering the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94, State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702 and XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173, referred to hereinabove. 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs. 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs. 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs. 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs. 35 lakhs out of which Rs. 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs. 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs. 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs. 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs. 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs. 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P. 2020 SCC Online All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. In the light of seriously disputed maze of facts which prima facie depict a crime thriller, it would amaze this Court for entertaining the subject petition, as it does require investigation in the least. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) The Writ Petition is rejected. (ii) Interim order, if any operating, shall stand dissolved. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the pending investigation/proceedings against him.