ORDER : SANDEEP N. BHATT, J. 1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the applicants for quashment of the Special Land Grabbing Case No.25 of 2023 pending before the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which is arising from the impugned FIR No.11192008230172 of 2023 registered with the Bavla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (‘the Land Grabbing Act’ for short). 2. Heard learned advocates. 3.1 Learned advocate Ms.Sangita M. Chauhan for learned advocate Mr. P.V. Patadiya for the petitioners has submitted that the present complaint is filed under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act and charge-sheet is also filed. She has further submitted that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court has observed something in the order in favour of the applicants. She has also submitted that the civil litigation are also pending, therefore, the impugned proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law. 3.2 It is further submitted that the present FIR is a classic case of abuse of process of law, more particularly, it is under the Land Grabbing Act. Therefore, the Court should interfere in the proceedings and quashed the same. It is also submitted that on merit also, in respect of very parcel of land, civil litigation is pending since more than ten years and as the Land Grabbing Act comes into force in the year 2020, the complainant is trying to take wrong advantage of the Act. 3.3 It is also submitted that the impugned FIR is in contravention in spirit of the Land Grabbing Act and Rule 5 of its Rules. It is submitted that the authority has overlooked the actual record of the land in question and has not appreciating the facts on record. It is also submitted that in fact, the complaint is lodged after a huge delay and the applicants are in actual possession of the land in question since last 35 years before the Land Grabbing Act comes into force and therefore, the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Lastly, it is submitted that the action impugned is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it requires interference by this Court. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that the action impugned is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it requires interference by this Court. 4. Learned APP for the State has strongly objected this application and has submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, offence is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that merely filing of the civil proceedings will not preclude the present applicants to file criminal proceeding. It is further submitted that after proper investigation, charge- sheet is also filed by the investigating officer. There is specific role of the present applicants, which is coming on record, which requires further trial. The proceedings which is filed for quashment of the FIR and charge-sheet, at this belated stage, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not required to be entertained as no case is made out which can be said that there is an abuse of process of law and discretion should be exercised by this Court very sparingly under Section 482 of the Code. It is, therefore, prayed that this application may be rejected and no relief may be granted to the applicant/s at this stage. 5.1 This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court has also perused the documents available on record at this stage. After considering the same, this Court finds that the FIR impugned is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and considering the tenor of the FIR, specific case is pleaded which is investigated by the police authority and charge-sheet is also filed, whereby, the role of the present applicants is specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet. 5.2 Further, merely pendency of the civil litigation or civil proceedings will not prohibit any criminal proceedings. If the offence is made out from the bare reading of the FIR, in several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, now the position of law is well settled that the matter, where civil suits are pending, may have also criminal colour. Therefore, first contention is required to be rejected. If the offence is made out from the bare reading of the FIR, in several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, now the position of law is well settled that the matter, where civil suits are pending, may have also criminal colour. Therefore, first contention is required to be rejected. 5.3 So far the second contention that there is a delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, considering the peculiar facts of the case and tenor of the FIR, it cannot be said that there is a delay, which can defeat the right of the complainant to lodge the FIR. On the contrary, on bare reading of the FIR, prima facie, it can be said that an offence is made out, which is required to be taken into consideration, more particularly under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act. In the present case, the investigation is carried out and charge-sheet is also filed. Therefore also, it is not the proper stage to interfere in the proceedings in question. Further, since the applicants have approached this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 of the Code, the Court should not interfere at such belated stage, more particularly, there is sufficient material available on record against the applicants and also on bare reading of the FIR, prima facie, an offence is made out against the applicants. 5.4 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein, it is held in paragraph 80 as under : “80. 5.4 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein, it is held in paragraph 80 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. 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. 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. 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.” 6. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no power shall be exercised in favour of the present applicants. This application is meritless and is, therefore, required to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.