ORDER : 1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.72/2024 (dated 17.02.2024), registered with the Police Station Shastrinagar, District Jaipur City (North), for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 474, 384 & 420 of IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioner with false and fabricated facts. Counsel further submits that no offence is made out against the present petitioner from the averments made in the F.I.R. Counsel also submits that it is not an allegation by the complainant that the petitioner has prepared some forged will, however, the allegation against him is that the alleged will has been obtained by deceiving the person who executed the will. Counsel further submits that the complainant has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of the alleged will. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the averments made in the F.I.R. 5. The law as regards the quashing of an FIR has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The relevant paras of the said judgment which are at page Nos. 305 & 306 are being reproduced as under:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which; we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengence on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegtions made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 6. On perusal of the averments made in the F.I.R., at this stage, it cannot be said that the said averments made in the F.I.R.do not constitute any cognizable offence. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has also filed a civil suit with regard to cancellation of the alleged will. By filing of a civil suit for cancellation of the alleged will, cannot exhaust a person from criminal liability. It also seems that the Criminal Court can only convict and acquit a person with regard to the offence related to some documents, however, right over some property can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and in such circumstances, filing a civil suit cannot be a ground for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. whether the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are false or fabricated, can only be ascertained after thorough investigation. 8. This Court has not been provided any mechanism to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. It is only for the investigating agency to collect the evidence and draw its conclusion. 9. It has also come on record that in a criminal case lodged by the present petitioner against the complainant party as regards the same issue & dispute which was registered as F.I.R. No.17/2021 (dated 11.01.2021), registered with the Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1119/2024 (Suresh Kumar Chandela Vs. Zaheer Abbas & Ors.) ordered as under:- "19. It appears from the materials on record that at the end of the investigation in FIR no. 17/2021, the factum of authenticity of the wills concerned could not be established. It is only after the wills were examined with undisputed documents during the course of examination in FIR no.227/2021 that new evidences emerged to disprove the allegations levelled against the above named accused and to substantiate the fact of genuineness of either of the concerned wills, it is just and necessary to further investigate the above case u/s173(8) Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. 20. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is a necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be carried on, as prescribed by law. 20. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is a necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be carried on, as prescribed by law. Any asumptious ground in regard to the conduction of investigation should not stand in the way of allowing further investigation, if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and deliver real, substantial as well as effective justice. Mere filing of the charge sheet cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation or even re-investigation/de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant. 21. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed and the order of the Additional District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan- II dated 29.06.2024 is upheld. 22. Looking to the fact that the criminal case was registered in the year 2020, it would be appropriate to direct the Investigation as allowed by the Court below, as early as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months, after taking all necessary steps to reach a fair conclusion." 10. Counsel appearing for the petitioner informed this Court that in the earlier F.I.R. No.17/2021 lodged by the petitioner against the complainant party, the Police submitted at first instance charge-sheet, however, after further investigation as allowed by the competent Court and upheld by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1119/2024 (Suresh Kumar Chandela Vs. Zaheer Abbas & Ors.), the Police has submitted final negative report. 11. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly speak that it is only investigating agency which can draw the conclusion with regard to correctness of the alleged allegations. While considering the case for quashing of impugned F.I.R, this Court prima facie has to see whether any cognizable offence is made out from the averments made in the F.I.R. in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned F.I.R. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 14. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.