Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.U.U.Lalit, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.K.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mahendra Pratap Singh Yadav, learned Government Advocate, Mr.Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi and Mr.Ravi Kant, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr.C.B.Pandey and Mr. Rohit Tripathi, learned counsels for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet bearing No. 317 of 2010 dated 8th of November, 2010 as well as the order dated 9th of November, 2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 13126 of 2010, whereby the petitioner has been summoned for trial under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 18th of October, 2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow allowing the application moved by the Investigating Officer to issue direction to the Chief Vigilance Officer/Income Tax Department, New Delhi to provide relevant documents for the purpose of investigation.

3. So far as the relief against the order of providing the relevant documents to the Investigating Officer by the Chief Vigilance Officer is concerned, the same has become infructuous after the order passed by the Delhi High Court with the direction to the Chief Vigilance Officer to provide those documents to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.

4. The main ground of challenge of the charge sheet is that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 8th of November, 2010, even during the continuation of the investigation, as is evident from the charge-sheet itself, which is impermissible. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the said charge sheet, submitted in continuation of the investigation, has also been questioned. No doubt the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of some of the witnesses, who alleged for commission of forgery in the documents, but it is not in dispute that by that time those documents were not in the hands of Investigating Officer, rather Investigating Officer was making efforts to get access over there. In furtherance of his efforts he filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court and also succeeded therein, later on. The Investigating Officer himself indicated the materials, which were to be collected at that stage including the necessary and desired documents. It is the allegation that since the husband of opposite party No. 8, posted as DIG/SSP, Lucknow, being Police Head of the District, who was going to be posted out on the same very date, he misused his position to manage and filed the charge-sheet on that date.

5. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Lalit appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that it speaks that every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. It is stated that it means that the Investigating Officer is permitted to file the charge sheet only on completion of the investigation, particularly for the facts which were within his knowledge, therefore, he was obliged to complete the proceeding for collection of evidence, which was in his knowledge and then only to file the charge-sheet, whereas the Investigating Officer, as is evident from the charge sheet, though was well aware with the documentary evidence and was also making efforts to collect them, yet before collecting the said evidence, he submitted the charge sheet, which is said to be incomplete charge-sheet, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of offence on such a police report, which is based on incomplete investigation. Thus, it is stated that the cognizance taken by the le