JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 20/2019 registered at Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore for offence under Sections 149, 406, 420, 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was alleged in the FIR against the petitioners that they along with other office bearers of Cooperative Society committed cheating and fraud with the respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 2 deposited his hard earned money with the cooperative society but the petitioners refused to return the same. Counsel submits that the petitioners are not in active functioning of the Cooperative Society and the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are absurd, baseless and inherently improbable. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR No. 20/2019 registered at Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report dated 24.02.2021 received from the concerned Police Station, in which it has been mentioned that after through investigation, it was found by the Police that the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime and the offences are proved against them. The said report is hereby taken on record.

4. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the material on record.

5. From the perusal of the FIR and documents available on record, prima facie it clearly appears that the petitioners have committed the alleged crime, therefore, at this preliminary stage, it cannot be said that FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

"102. 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 extraordinary 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. 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 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.

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 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.

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 c