1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. the petitioner seeks quashing of first information report No. 138/2003 dated 6.11.2003 of Police Station Hathipole, Udaipur.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the first information report and also the documents annexed with this criminal misc. petition by the petitioner.

3. On 6.11.2003 Rooplal Patel, who is a trustee of Institution of Triable (Tribal) Sanitation Health Education and Nutrition Society, Udaipur (for short "the society" hereinafter) lodged the above noticed FIR with the police with the allegation that Dr. N.K. Pipliwal was incharge of the Blood Bank but due to his hip fracture he underwent an operation and, therefore, for time being petitioner Anil Sahdev was given the charge on 12.10.2002. The petitioner was handling the bank transaction of the blood bank with other two signatories. In order to cause wrongful gain to himself the petitioner opened a bank account showing himself to be a proprietor with oblique motive to cause a wrongful gain to himself and use the amount of society for his own use. The petitioner deposited the amount of society in the account opened in his personal name showing himself to be a proprietor and misappropriated the funds. The amount which was required to be deposited in the society's bank account was not deposited, on the contrary deposited in his personal account and the same was utilised by the petitioner himself, therefore, the cheques issued by the society were dishonoured for want of funds. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged various documents and used those forged documents as genuine. The documents are said to be of valuable security. On this report the police registered crime report against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406, 418, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The matter is at the investigation stage.

4. From the bare perusal of the FIR prima facie the cognizable offences as noticed above are made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certain documents Anx 2 to Anx. 6 and on the strength of defence sought to be proposed in the case he submits that the instant FIR be quashed.

5. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the case for quashing of FIR/complaint held that the power under Section 482 Cr.RC. should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Apex Court illustrated following categories in which the FIR can be quashed :

(i) "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.

(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) Where the allegations in the FIR 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 section 155(2) of the Code.

(v) 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.

(vi) Where there is an expression legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the in