1 2025:CGHC:31029-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2377 of 2023 1 Smt. Suman Dheer W/o Shri Balraj Kumar Dheer Aged About 77 Years (Founder Director Of Gyan Ganga Education Institute Private Limited) R/o Mig-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Sarvesh Dheer S/o Shri Balraj Kumar Dheer Aged About 49 Years (Shareholder Of Director Of Gyan Ganga Education Institute Private Limited) R/o Mig-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 Balraj Kumar Dheer S/o Shri Satya Prakash Dheer Aged About 81 Years (Retired Executive Engineer) R/o Mig-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 Vijay Kumar Dheer S/o Late Shri Satya Prakash Dheer Aged About 79 Years At Present Resident At Village Kotisakhan, Post And Police Station Kotisakhan (Dharamkot), District : Moga *, Punjab ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge Of Police Station Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Sachin Shandilya S/o Shri Upendra Shandilya Aged About 51 Years JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.10 15:42:33 +0530 2 R/o S-25, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur, Post Shankar Nagar, Police Station Khamhardih, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dubey and Mr. Anil Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 /State : Mr. Malay Jain, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Pillai and Mr. Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Dubey and Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned P.L. and for the State and Mr. Sunil Pillai and Mr. Sumit Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. Earlier the present petition has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 31.10.2023. Against such order, the petitioner herein approached the Supreme Court in CRA No. 1358/ 2025 (Arising out of SLP (CrL) No. 9926/ 2024. The said appeal has been allowed and matter is remitted back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 4 months. 3. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C with the following prayer:- 3 “It is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set aside the First Information Report registered by Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District-Raipur vide Crime No. 107/2016 against the petitioners for offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code and final report (Annexure P-1) and also consequential criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur, District- Raipur vide Criminal case No. 15637/2023 (Annexure P-2) and also pass any appropriate order in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. a. Facts of the case in brief is that in the year 1991, late Upendra Kumar Shandilya opted for voluntary retirement from his service. After his retirement Late Upendra Shandilya proposed for opening of an educational institute and got an institute registered on 11.11.1991 under the name of "Gyan Ganga Educational Private Limited” on the basis of agreement dated 7.9.1991. At the time of opening of institute late Upendra Shandilya had asked for investment of money by way of financial help. There had been an agreement (one set original and two sets carbon copy) entered into between Smt. Suman Dheer, Smt. Rajkumari Kanda, Upendra Shandilya and R.P. Singh. The terms were settled in the 4 agreement and it was agreed between the parties that initially in absence of any profit, the parties would not be paid any dividend or bonus on the amount they have invested by way of purchase of shares. However, it was categorically agreed that the interest of the said amount would be paid to the parties after five years. Further, the Company had been playing game of hide and seek with Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda and the petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda were designated as the Directors, have not been allowed every rights provided under the law. b. The petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda were neither paid any interest on deposits nor any dividend on shares nor any notice of meetings and copy of Annual General Meetings, Balance sheets, Profit & Loss Account either. The company is completely concealing facts from the petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda and thereby has been playing a fraud with the petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda. It is also alleged that the company is acquiring properties without showing any loan or borrowing from any person or institution whatsoever. Further, Laxminarayan Shandilya, Sachin Shandilya, Smt. Manju Shandilya and R.P. Singh have committed gross violation of terms and conditions of the company and also violated the provisions of Company Law Act. Laxminarayan Shandilya, Sachin Shandilya, 5 Smt. Manju Shandilya and R.P. Singh have also prepared false documents including Extra Ordinary General Meeting specially meeting dated 1.6.1996, 11.6.1996 and 25.9.1998. Further, there were four Directors as per agreement namely; Upendra Shandilya, R.P. Singh, Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt Rajkumari Kanda. One Director Shri Upendra Shandilya expired on 6.6.1996 and one another Director Shri R.P. Singh has resigned on 29.11.2006, thereafter only two founder Directors the petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda are remained. Sachin Shandilya is/was not a member of the company and he has been illegally introduced as Director of the company by false meeting dated 11.6.1996. Smt. Manju Shandilya has also been illegally introduced as Director of the company by false meeting dated 29.9.1998. The petitioner No. 1 is director and the petitioner No. 2/ Sarvesh Dheer is shareholder of Gyan Ganga Education Institute Private Limited. Further, petitioner No. 1/ Smt. Suman Dheer and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda have filed Civil Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the basis of the agreement dated 7.9.1991 and investment of money in the Gyan Ganga Education Pvt. Ltd. The said suit has been filed on 11.9.1998 and time to time the number of case has been changed and lastly registered as Civil Suit No. 9A/ 2012. Further, respondent namely Sachin Shandilya has lodged FIR against the petitioners for forging documents namely; agreement one bearing dated 07.09.1991 and the other undated. 6 5. A) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the informer/ complainant T.R. Dewangan is attesting witness of agreements and after passing of 25 years or during proceeding of the civil suit and complaint case, the agreement has not been questioned by the founder members of the company. He further submits that the police authority has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in view of section 195 and 340 Code of Criminal Procedure because allegation leveled against the petitioners is that they have used false agreement and statement before the learned Court during judicial proceeding/ trial. He also submits that many civil suit, appeal, complaint case etc. are pending before the learned District Court and before this Court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court between the petitioners and Gyan Ganga Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd." and the FIR in question was lodged by the Respondent No.2 after the lapse of nearly 25 years of the alleged Commission of offense through misleading, fabricated and concocted story that the agreement dated 07.09.1991 was forged by the petitioners. He submits that the agreement dated 07.09.1991 was acted upon by the Respondent No.2 for all these years in multiple legal proceedings before various Courts and there never was a whisper by the Respondent No.2 regarding the alleged forgery by the Petitioners and prays for quashing the FIR in question. B) It is further submitted that the Police authority has no 7 jurisdiction to investigate the case in view of Section 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. because of allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have used false agreement and statement before the learned Court during judicial proceeding/ trial. He also submits that many civil suit, appeal, complaint case etc. are pending before the learned District Court and this Court between the petitioners and Gyan Ganga Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd. The informer/ complainant, namely, T.R. Dewangan is attesting witness or agreements and after passing 25 years or during proceeding of the civil suit and complaint case, the agreement has not been questioned by the founder members of the company. Thereafter, on the basis of the said agreement the Civil Suit No. 9A/2012 filed by the petitioner No. 1 and Vijay Kumar Dheer has been dismissed on the ground that the dispute can be resolved before the Arbitrator and an appeal against dismissal of suit is pending before this Court for kind consideration. C) He further submits that the Gyan Ganga Education Academy and Sachin Shandilya have field C.R. No. 29/2016 before this Court against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned trial Court. The said revision has been filed on the basis of agreement dated 07.09.1991 by stating that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 10 of the Companies Act and Arbitration & Conciliation Act. He also submits that as per FIR it has been mentioned that Sachin Shandilya has been discharged 8 by the learned Second Upper Session, Judge, Raipur on 31.12.2012. The petitioner No. 2/Sarvesh Dheer preferred revision vide CRR No. 105/2013 before this Court against the order dated 31.12.2012. On 19.09.2013, this Court had passed the order, whereby the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the learned Second Upper Session Judge, Raipur was set aside and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Raipur is restored. Thereafter, Smt. Manju Shandilya and another had filed SLP(Cri.) No. 8570/2013 against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by this Court in CRR No. 105/2013. On 07.05.2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order dated 19.09.2013 and matter is remitted back to this Court for passing appropriate order after considering the submission of the counsel afresh. The CRR No. 105/2013 is pending before this Court for kind consideration. The complainant has concealed the true facts at the time of lodging the complaint. D) It is further contended that the petitioners have taken expert opinion on questioned signatures of Shri Upendra Kumar Shandilya and Shri Ravindra Pal Singh on agreement at Raipur without date. On 18.09.2009, Dr. (Ku.) Sunanda Dhenge M.Sc., Ph.D. (Forensic Science) Handwriting – Finger Print Expert has given her opinion that the agreement without date and with date is not a forged and fabricated document and has been executed by four members and signature in the agreement and signature of 9 the official documents are similar. E) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 17.03.2016, the petitioner No. 1 has made complaint before the respondent No. 1 with documentary evidence and mentioned the details of the incident and nature of offence has been committed by the responsible person, but the Police has not registered the FIR against the persons whom have filed forged, false and fabricated document before this Court in Company Petition No. 6/2003. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition, bearing WPCR No. 130/2016 before this Court for registration of FIR, in which the State has filed reply and recorded the statement of proposed accused and denied for registration of FIR that many case is pending between them. He further submits that on 15.02.2016, the Sachin Shandilya has filed writ petition i.e. WPCR No. 36/2016 before this Court for issue writ directing the respondent to lodge FIR. The employee of respondent No. 2 (Mr. T.R. Dewangan, who is attesting witness of agreement) has lodge complaint before the respondent No. 1 during pendency of the WPCR No. 36/2016 on the same facts and same documents. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has registered the questioned FIR/ Crime No. 107/2016 against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120B of the IPC without conducting preliminary enquiry as per direction and guideline issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 10 Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. On 09.05.2016, the respondent No. 1/State filed reply in the WPCR No. 36/2016 and submitted that the FIR has been on the basis of complaint of T.R. Dewangan and produced the copy of FIR, which shows that conspiracy against the petitioners. This Court had not directed to State authority to lodge FIR in WPCR No. 36/2016 and during pendency of the petition, the FIR has been lodged, thereafter the petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. F) He further contended that Mr. T.R. Dewangan and Sachin Shandilya had filed writ petition i.e. WPCR No. 270/2018 before this Court to issue writ directing respondent No. 1 to complete investigation within a reasonable period as required under Section 173(1) of the Cr.P.C. The WPCR No. 270/2018 was not filed in clean hand and concealed the true facts before this Court. The FIR has been registered on the basis of facts of Court proceeding and the Police authority has no power to interfere or investigate the case with respect Court’s proceedings/ orders. The petitioners were not made party in the said writ petition. He also contended that the petitioners have filed Review Petition No. 65/2018 before this Court to recall/ modify the order dated 08.05.2018 passed in WPCR No. 270/2018 on the ground that respondent No. 6 and Sachin Shandilya have statutory remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the said remedy has not been exhausted, hence 11 the WPCR No. 270/2018 is not maintainable. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained where the petitioner has alternative remedy which provides an equally efficacious remedy. The Police authority has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in view of Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. because of allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have used false agreement and statement before the learned Court during judicial proceeding/ trial. The petitioners had not been made as party in the WPCR No. 270/2018 and they are necessary party and no opportunity of hearing has been provided prior to passing the order dated 08.05.2018 and their rights have been highly violated, which is not permissible and sustainable under the eyes of law and fair justice delivery system. G) He further submits that the petitioner No. 3 was arrested by the respondent No. 1 on 17.07.2018 when he went to Jabalpur, thereafter, the petitioner No. 3 was released on bail vide order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 5435/2018. He also submits that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed company petition vide No. 109/2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai against M/s Gyan Ganga Educational Institute, Sachin Shandilya and others for acts of oppression, mismanagement, fraud, manipulation and falsification of statutory and other records. The said petition was dismissed on 06.11.2017. Thereafter, they filed appeal before the Hon’ble 12 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, ‘NCLAT’) under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the judgment dated 06.11.2017 vide Company Appeal (AT) No. 44/2018. On 20.08.2019, the Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi passed judgment by upholding the order of Company Law Board and ordered that the respondents (of that appeal) will pay the appellants their balance of unsecured loan with interest etc. by consideration the agreement dated 07.09.1991 (which is alleged forged in the present crime). H) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed Contempt Case (AT) No. 27/2020 before the Hon’ble NCLAT to punish the contemnors for breach and willful disobedient of the final judgment dated 20.08.2019. The said petition was decided on 26.11.2021 and as per para 11 of the said judgment it is held that there is no dispute between the parties that as per the agreement dated 07.09.1991 on the unsecured loan of the applicants, the respondent No. 1 was to make payment @ 155 annually compounded. He also submits that the petitioners has filed writ petitions, being WPCR Nos. 167/2016 and 227/2016 before this Court for quashment of FIR registered by Police Station – Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur vide Crime No. 107/2016 against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120B of the IPC. On 29.09.2016, the 13 respondent/State has filed reply in the WPCR No. 167/2016 and submitted that the answering respondents are trying to their best level to investigate the matter in fair and impartial manner and they are duty bound to investigate matter after collecting the documentary evidence i.e. original agreement executed in the year 1991 because it would be required to answering respondents to send the same to its examination from State examiner of questioned document after collecting the specific signature of the author. The Police has not collected the original documents till date and filed charge-sheet and also arrested the petitioner No. 3 without any evidence. I) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 22.08.2016, the WPCR No. 167/2016 was listed before this Court and this Court pleased to issue notice to the respondents. On 06.08.2018 this Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, interim protection was extended till final disposal of the case. On 16.06.2023, this Court has decided the case finally and directed the investigating agency to conclude the investigation within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment and submit a Police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court in accordance with law. The interim order dated 06.08.2016 passed in favour of the petitioner shall continue subject to conclusion of the investigation. 14 J) He further submits that the petitioners have made representation on different date along with copy of order dated 16.06.2023 and order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Hon’ble NCLCT, Delhi before the Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, DGP of Chhattisgarh, DIG, Raipur, SSP and Senior SP, Raipur and the Police Thana, Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Raipur. The petitioners have mentioned the details grounds and litigation which is pending between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 and also mentioned the legal grounds that the prosecution cannot prosecute the petitioners due to lack of jurisdiction, which has not been considered any reasons. k) Mr. Rakesh Dubey, further submitted that the statement of the petitioner No. 3 (Shri Balraj Dheer/AW-2) has been recorded prior to framing charges. The petitioner No. 3 has been lengthily cross-examined by the respondent No. 2 about 8 years continuously (from 26.10.2004 to 04.01.2012). The conduct of the respondent No. 2 is comes under the definition of mental and physical torture and harassment. He also submits that the Police has not followed the direction this Court dated 16.06.2023 and filed charge-sheet after six weeks i.e. on 20.09.2023. The Police issued notice to the petitioners, thereafter, the petitioners given reply that the original document of agreement has been filed before the learned Civil Court in Civil Case No. 9A/2012. The seizure memo has been prepared on 12.07.2018 from T.R. 15 Dewangan who has died and the seizure memo has been prepared on 18.08.2023 from the respondent No. 2 after prescribed time by this Court in WPCR No. 167/2016 order dated 16.06.2023 and the Police has not seized original document of agreement dated 07.09.1991. L) It is further submitted by Mr. Dubey that on 13.05.2023, the Police has issued notice to the respondent No. 2 to produce the original document of agreement dated 07.09.1991. The respondent No. 2 has given answer that copy of original agreement is not available and the same was produced by the petitioners in the complaint case. The Police has recorded the statement of 03 witnesses, namely, T.R. Dewangan, Sachin Shandilya and Ravindra Pal Singh. Mr. T.R. Dewangan has died. As per statement of Sachin Shandilya, no essential ingredient of alleged offence is prima facie made out. As per statement of Ravindra Pal Singh, the alleged agreement dated 07.09.1991 is not forged agreement and he clearly stated that the agreement has been executed between Smt. Suman Dheer (petitioner No.1), Smt. Rajkumari Kanda (who has died), Upendra Kumar Shandilya (who has died) and Ravindra Pal Singh (witness) and D.K. God and T.R. Dewangan (informer/complaint, now who has died). He has clearly stated that many copy of agreement has been prepared at Raipur and the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda have filed the said agreement before this Court 16 and Tribunal. The statement of prosecution witness Ravindra Pal Singh has been ignored by the prosecution and filed charge-sheet against the petitioners without any legal evidence. M) Mr. Dubey further submits that the petitioner No. 1 was director of the Gyan Ganga Education Institute Pvt. Ltd., who has been removed from her directorship by forged Annual General Meeting dated 25.09.1998 and the respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Managing Director by preparing false and forge documents i.e. Annual General Meeting dated 01.06.1996 and 11.06.1996. The State House Officer, mechanically without application of mind as to commission of any cognizable offence, registered an FIR by abusing his power and post. Mr. Bhaduri also placed a reliance of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, Savitri Pandey & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 95, Gopalakrishna Menon & Another vs. D. Raja Reddy & Another, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 240, Baijnath Jha vs. Sita Ram & Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 77 and Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 1. 6. 6. Per Contra, learned State counsel oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the offence relates to cheating and the matter requires investigation. 17 7. i) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the matter has been investigated and the final report has been filed by the police authority and the matter is pending in the Learned Trial court where the petitioner would have the opportunity to adduce evidence if they wish to prove any such allegations. He further submits that the the original and photocopy of the agreement appears to be fabricated if viewed in juxtaposition, as the last page of both the copies, one has 3 signatures in the witness column and the other has 2 signatures in the witness column and one bears no date. ii) Learned counsel would further submit that the agreements annexed with the petition at page 101 and 105 are photocopies of the same agreement and both the agreements are undated. Referring the agreement at page 105, learned counsel would submit that it is mentioned in the agreement that the same has been executed on 07.09.1991, but the same is absolutely incorrect because from perusal of the agreement at page 101, it is evident that in the said agreement there is no date, whereas in the agreement at 105 in the witness column A.C. Sondhi has put his signature by mentioning the date 07.09.1991. In fact the signature of said A.C. Sondhi was not found place in the witness column of agreement at page No. 101, which itself creates doubt about existence of the documents. Thus, the agreement on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking quashment of criminal proceedings stating that the said agreement is genuine document which was 18 placed by the parties before several forums cannot be a ground for quashment of criminal proceedings. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR and the criminal proceedings pending against them before the JMFC, Raipur, District Raipur which was registered at the behest of the complainant/respondent No.2. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the copy of the agreement and the photocopy filed are not the same. The agreement at page 105 contains 3 signatures in the witness column and the other at page 101 contains 2 signatures in the witness column. Though in agreement at Page 105 one party has put his signature by mentioning date 07.09.91, the other one bears no date. Moreover the agreement in question is an undated document which itself creates doubt about its execution between the parities. At this stage, when the trial is going on against the petitioners before the trial Court, all the grounds which the petitioners are stating in their defence, can also put all that material before the trial Court and defend themselves, but at this stage, the pre-trial finding from this Court is not permissible when the existence of agreement itself is doubtful. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage. 10. An agreement existence of which is doubtful cannot be the sole basis for quashing a criminal case under Section 482 of the 19 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). While Section 482 allows High Courts to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, it is not intended to be a substitute for examining the genuineness of evidence. The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 is meant to be used judiciously and not to usurp the role of trial courts in determining factual disputes. A court will generally not investigate the truthfulness of allegations or the validity of documents supporting a request to quash a criminal case unless those allegations are clearly frivolous or do not establish any offence. 11. It is the trite law that in ordinary course the court should not invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of C.P. Subhash vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Others reported in 2013 (11) SCC 559 held thus at paras 7 to 11: 7. The legal position regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in relation to pending criminal proceedings including FIRs under investigation is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Suffice it to say that in cases where the complaint lodged by the complainant whether before a court or before the jurisdictional police station makes out the commission b of an offence, the High Court would not in the ordinary course invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare 20 and compelling circumstances enumerated in the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. 8. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) where this Court observed: (SCC p. 262, с para 9) "9.... If factual foundation for the offence has been laid [down] in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence." 9. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta where this Court said: (SCC p. 700, para 11) "11.... the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and f hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective 21 without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.... It would not be proper for g the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code." 10. Decisions of this Court in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley reiterate the above legal position. 11. Coming to the case at hand it cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or that the same do not prima facie allege the complicity of the persons accused of committing the same. The complaint filed by the appellant sets out the relevant facts and alleges that the documents have been forged and fabricated only to be used as genuine to make a fraudulent and illegal claim over the land owned by the complainant. 22 The following passage from the complaint is relevant in this regard: "... Thus evidently these two sale deeds being produced by GWL i.e. 1551 of 1922 dated 10-3-1922 and 1575 of 1922 dated 27-6-1922 are forged and fabricated and after making the false documents they were used as genuine to make fraudulent and illegal claim over our lands and to grab them. The representatives of GWL Properties with dishonest motive of grabbing our lands having indulged in committing forgery and fabrication of documents and with the aid of the forged documents are constantly attempting to criminally trespass into our lawfully possessed lands and have been threatening and intimidating the staff of our Company in an illegal manner endangering life and damaging the land. The representatives of GWL Properties also have been making false statements to the Government Revenue Authorities by producing these forged and fabricated documents with dishonest intention to enter their name in the government records. The present Director in charge and responsible for the affairs of GWL Properties Limited is Mrs V.M. Chhabria and all the abovementioned acts and commission of offences have been committed with the knowledge of the Directors of GWL Properties Ltd., and connivance for which they are liable. Mr A.VL Ramprasad Varma representing M/s GWL Properties Limited has registered a civil suit in the District Court, Chengalpet using the forged documents. Mr Satish, Manager (Legal) and Mr Shanmuga Sundram, Senior Manager (Administration), have assisted in 23 fabricating the forged documents and used the same to get patta from the Tahsildar, Tambaram, thus cheating the government officials. Hence we request you to register the complaint and to investigate and take action in accordance with law as against the said company M/s GWL Properties Limited represented by Mr Satish, Manager (Legal); Mr Shanmudga Sundaram, Senior Manager (Administration); A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma, Directors, and their accomplice who have connived and indulged in fabricating and forging a documents for the purpose of illegally grabbing our lands and for all other offences committed by them." 13. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, the present Cr.M.P., being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar