The court emphasized that the absence of a prior allegation of forgery in the FIR limited the scope for a further investigation under Section 173(8).

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking following reliefs :-

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents No.3 to conduct the further investigation fairly and impartially in connection with CR no. I-129/2011 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to monitor the said further investigation as carried out by respondent No. 3 and to submit the report within the stipulated time frame as this Hon'ble High Court may deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3145/2012 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in the interest of justice;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant with other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

2. While taking this Court through facts of the case, learned advocate Mr.Jasani for the petitioner submitted that facts of the case deserve further investigation of the offence. It is submitted that case the petitioner is that his mother's signature has been forged upon documents send for registering Nissan Car at Chandigarh. It is further submitted that the petitioner who has purchased Nissan Car from respondent no.4 has given promise that if the applicant pays part of the amount of registration fee, respondent nos.4 to 6 shall pay remaining amount on discount and the petitioner shall get Nissan Car registered from RTO, State of Gujarat. It is further submitted that according to promise of respondent no.4 to 6, the petitioner paid amount, however, petitioner was surprised to see that registration of car was issued by Chandigarh RTO, which demonstrate that car was registered by registering authority at Chandigarh. Upon further inquiry, it was found that respondent nos.4 to 6 have send certain documents to registering authority, Chandigarh with forged signature of petitioner's mother. Therefore, prima facie case under section 465, 468, 471 of IPC though made out, proper investigation was never carried out and it is not included in charge-sheet which was filed under section 406 and 420 of IPC. It is further submitted that since Criminal Case has commended against accused before the competent Court, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anant Thanur Karmuse v/s. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 5 SCC 802], only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach this Court to seek further investigation.

2.1. Mainly on above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petition and direct respondent nos.1 to 3 to further investigate the offence and to place report to the learned Jurisdictional Court of further investigation.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for private respondent objected the petition on the ground that filing of petition is abuse of process of law and there is not contract between the petitioner that Car was to be registered through RTO, Porbander and in absence thereof, merely on certain words of the petitioner, it cannot be believed that priavte respondents have committed any offence under section 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and therefore, the petition being bereft of merits, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned APP while adopting argument of learned advocate Mr.Dave would submit that no case is made out for further investigation of offence.

5. Having heard learned advocate for both the sides, and having considered record, at the outset, let refer FIR filed by the petitioner. Relevant portion of FIR rea