ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has prayed for quashing the F. I. R. No. 278/94 (EX. P. 10) lodged by Nimba Ram against him at Police Station, Nagaur.
(2.) THE allegations made in the written report, lodged by Nimba Ram, are that on 25-2-94, he applied for the loan for his tube- well from Amfort Agro Finance Limited, Branch Office, Nagaur, and submitted the application in the prescribed form after completing the necessary formalities. Dileep Kankariya was the Assistant Manager while Rani Narain Deora was the Branch Manager of the aforesaid Finance Company. THEy and one Prema informed the complainant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- so that the loan may be released in his favour. THE informant deposited Rs. 2000/- on 10-3-94 as the service charges vide receipt No. 2860 and Rs. 25,000/- were deposited on 23-3-94 vide receipt No. 13923 in the Nagaur Branch of Amfort Agro. Finance Limited. His son, also, deposited Rs. 2000/- on 10-3-94 vide receipt No. 2859. THE Amfort Agro. Finance Company thereafter released a cheque for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on 25-4-94, which was dishonoured by the bank. After the cheque being dishonoured, he approached the officers of the Finance Company posted at Nagaur but they refused to make payment and showed their inability. When the complainant demanded back the amount of Rs. 29,000/- then they declined to make payment and informed him that the Office has been closed and no payment can be made. On the basis of this information, a case was registered against the petitioner, Dileep Kankariya and one Prema at Police Station, Nagaur. The quashing of the F. I. R. lodged by Nimba Ram at Police Station, Nagaur, has been sought by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant, with respect to several cases including the case against the petitioner, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, against the Managing Director Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, Senior Manager (Adm.), Mr. Rajendra Singh, Regional Manager, Mr. Chhatar Singh, Ganesh Ram and other employees of the company and, also, against one Rajendra Singh Shekhawat the Area Manager- which was sent for investigation to the S. H. O. , Police Station, Nagaur, and two parallel proceedings involving the same offences, cannot be investigated and the present F. I. R. has been lodged against the petitioner in order to harass him. It has, also, been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheques which have been dishonoured by the bank, were issued by the Head Office and not by the petitioner and whatever amount was obtained by him, has been sent by him to the Head Office and, therefore, the petitioner has not committed any offence and he merely acted on behalf of the company to accept the money for sending the same to the Head Office and the domain of the money never remained with the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the F. I. R. , at the initial stage, cannot be quashed because the allegations made in it do disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioner justifying the investigation by a police officer. It has, also, been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that two parallel investigations with respect to the same matter can be continued and there is no bar against it. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Registration of the F. I. R. is the beginning of the investigation. It can be quashed if the allegations made in it do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying the investigation by the police officer but if the allegations disclose the commission of the cognizable offence then the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should not be used to stiffle the legitimate prosecution. The Court should refrain from interferring in the statutory powers of the police to investigate the matter by quashing the F. I. R. and give a pre-mature decision when the allegations made in the F. I. R. are still to be investigated by the police. The evidence has not been collected so far as the facts are still incomplete and, therefore, the issue cannot be looked-into in the right perspective in the absence of sufficient material. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B. R. Bajaj and others (1) "that at the stage of F. I. R. , the Court should refrain from interferring when the F. I. R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the powers of the police to investigate cannot be interferred with in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. " After going through the allegations made in the F. I. R. , at this stage, it cannot be - said that the F. I. R. , in the present case, does not disclose the commission of the cognizable offence by the accused. The F. I. R. , therefore, cannot be quashed at this pre-mature stage without any investigation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already filed a complaint against the Managing Director and other Office-bearers of the company with respect to several matters relating to Nagaur area, including the petitioner, and it will be unnecessary harassment to him if the F. I. R. against him will be allowed to be investigated. No such harassment or prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner. The investigating agency can investigate the complaint filed by the complainant as well as the F. I. R. lodged against him. Both the investigations can be conducted by the investigating agency and the investigating agency will bring-out the real truth in the case. There is no bar on the investigation being conducted in two separate First Information Reports lodged with respect to the same matter. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, therefore, devoid of any force.
(3.) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheques, which were dishonoured, were issued by the company and not by the petitioner and the amount never remained with the petitioner and he sent the same to the company. In support of this contention, he has placed on record certain receipt issued by Amfort Agro. Finance Company Limited. Consideration of documents, produced by the petitioner, and his defence, at this stage, would amount to investigation by the Court: whether the offences, alleged in the F. I. R. ,are made-out. That exercise cannot be performed by the High Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. because that will amount to usurping the powers vested in the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, also, prayed that till the investigation is completed, the petitioner may not be arrested. Whether the petitioner can be allowed anticipatory bail or not, this matter can be decided only in an application, if filed by the petitioner, under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that he has moved an application for the grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge in which the petitioner has already been granted interim bail. When the matter for consideration of the anticipatory bail is already pending before the competent Court and an interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner then no further order is required to be passed in this regard. The petitioner may approach the appropriate Court for the redressal of his grievances. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it may be observed that if possible, the investigating officer may investigate both the matters simultaneously. . ;