1 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1875 OF 2007 1. Chalisgaon Education Society, Chalisgaon, C/o. A.B.High School, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through Shri.Narayan Mangilal Agrawal, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, Chairman of Managing Board, Chalisgaon Education Society, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 2. Kantilal Bhagchand Chhajed, Age-38 years, Occu-Business and Chairman of Committee of K.R.Kotkar Senior College, Chalisgaon, R/o.Adva Bazar, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Vasant Sonu Chandratre, Age-41 years, Occu-Business and General Secretary of Chalisgaon Education Society, R/o.Nitin Electrical Stores, Opp.Shrikrishna Chitra Mandir, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Jagannath Motilal Agrawal, Age-52 years, Occu-Income Tax Advisor and practitioner, R/o.Ghat Road, Prabhat Galli, Chasligaon, Dist. Jalgaon 2 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 5. Pravinbhai Hirubhai Patel, Age-37 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Ganesh Road, Near Jain Mandir, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 6. Suresh Ramchandra Swar, Age-Major, Occu-Business, R/o.”Ramdhenu”, Gavaliwada, Netaji Chowk, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Somsing Indrasing Rajput, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, Principal of K.R.Ketkar Junior College, Chalisgaon, R/o.Kargaon Road, Railway Line, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 8. Vijaysing Ratansing Rajput, Age-36 years, Occu-Service, Vice Principal of K.R.Ketkar Junior College, Chalisgaon, R/o.Old Malegaon Road, Sonusing Nagar, Airport, Maharanapratap Co.op.Housing Society, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 9. Hiraman Bhikan Karankal, Age-52 years, Occu-Service and Representative of the Teachers of K.R.Junior College, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, R/o.”Shevantai”, Hanumanwadi, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgoan, 10. Narayan Mangilal Agrawal, Age-49 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Sitamai Nagar, 3 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 Near Titur Rover, Shetkari Sahakari Sangh, Near Ginning Press, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 11. Uttam Baburao Rakhunde, Age-43 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Prabhu Ramchandra Nagar, Dhule Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 12. Ananda Supdu Wani, Age-57 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Near Weekly Market, Nagad Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 13. Bhojraj Prarelal Punshi, Age-38 years, Occu-Contractor, Opp.Railway Station, Sindhi Colony, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 14. Baburao Shravan Wani, Age-40 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Gavliwada, Near A.B.High School, Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 15. Somnath Chinilal Kalantri, Age-50 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Vijaywadi, Dudhsagar Road, West of Hirapur Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 16. Dr.Subhash Waman Purnapatre, Age-53 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o.Sangam Hospital, 4 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 Mahavir Road, Near Titur River, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 17. Pradip Vasantrao Ahirrao, Age-40 years, Occu-Legal Practitioner, R/o.Towards South of Malegaon Road, Shivaji Nagar, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 18. Murlidhar Ramkrishna Amrutkar, Age-42 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o.”Amrutvel” Mahatma Phule Colony, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 19. Gulab Punju Wani, Age-44 years, Occu-Service - Principal of K.R.Ketkar Junior College, Dhule Road, Chalisgaon, R/o.Vivekanand Nagar, Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 20. Keshav Rambhau Kotkar, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Nandan Dugdhalaya, Near Police Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 21. Suresh Hardas Chaudhari, Age-39 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Chaudhari Wada, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 22. Milind Babanrao Deshmukh, Age-36 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Hotel Sujay Ghat Road, Near Urdu High School, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 5 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 23. Premchand Jawharilal Khinwasara, Age-42 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Mahavir Traders, R.F.Market, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 24. Ravindra Chudaman Patil, Age-48 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Bhadgaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 25. Dr.Murlidhar Bhivrao Patil, Age-49 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o.Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 26. Gopal Madanlal Dayama, R/o.Near Titur River, Shetkari Sahakari Sangh, Near Ginning Press, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 27. Ramesh Ganpat Awate, Age-44 years, Occu-Service and Social Work. R/o.Prabhu Ramchandra Nagar, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 28. Ramkrishna Ganpat Wani, Age-Major, Occu-Service, Head Master of A.B.Boys High School, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 29. Vijaya Tukaram Narwade, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, Head Mistress 6 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 of A.B.Girls High School, Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 30. Tilokchand Ganeshmal Sharma, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, Head Master of H.H.Patel Primary Vidyamandir, Dhule Road, Opp.Court, Chasligaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 31. Shashikant Tukaram Avad, Age-51 years, Occu-Service, Head Master of V.H.Patel Prathamik Vidya Mandir, Near Gavaliwada, Chasligaon, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Nanabhau Jangalrao Pawar, Age-67 years, Occu-Agriculture and Legal Practitioner, R/o.Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 2. The State of Maharashtra, 3. Assistant Police Inspector, (Investigation Officer) Chalisgaon Police Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, 4. Bhalchandra @ B.D.Desale, Age-Major, Occu-Service, Dy.Director of Education -Primary and Secondary, Nashik Division, Nasik. 5. S.K.Pawar, District Education Officer, 7 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 Primary and Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3812 OF 2007 1. Bhalchandra @ B.D.Desale, Age-52 years, Occu-Service, Dy.Director of Education, (Nashik Division Nashik) (At present Joint Dy.Director of Education, Central Building, Pune.) 2. S.K.Pawar, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, District Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANTS Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, 2. Nanabhau Jangalrao Pawar, Age-67 years, Occupation - Agriculture and Lawyer, R/o.Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENTS Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicants in Cri.Appl.No.1875/2007. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the applicants in Cri.Appl.No.3812/2007. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State in both the applications. Mr.P.P.Chavan, learned counsel for original complainant. 8 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) RESERVED ON : 25/04/2011 PRONOUNCED ON : 06/05/2011 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule was issued on 27/09/2007 and 25/10/2007 in both the applications respectively. 2. Original complainant had preferred Special Leave Petition (Cri) No.67 of 2008, challenging the order of interim relief granted by this Court on 27/09/2007, in which by way of order dated 21/02/2011, Supreme Court requested this Court to dispose of the main petition filed u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. Hence both these matters are taken up for final hearing, out of turn. 3. Cri.Appl.No.1875/2007 is filed by the applicants, who are arrayed as accused no.1 to accused no.31 in CR No.90/2007, registered in Chalisgaon Police Station, to quash and set aside the complaint/FIR No.90/2007, while Cri.Appl.No.3812/2007 is filed by the applicants, who are arrayed as accused no.32 and 33 in the same CR No.90/2007, to quash and set aside the said CR, registered in Chalisgaon Police Station against them. As both these applications arise out of the same offence, both the applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 9 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications, followed by the submissions of learned A.P.P. and learned counsels for remaining respondents. 5. Before considering the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, so also learned counsel for original complainant and learned A.P.P., it is necessary to advert to the undisputed facts. Applicant no.1 in the first application is the Education Society, originally registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act, somewhere in the year 1909. After amendment to the Bombay Trust Act, it is also registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. This Institution is running various colleges. Accused no.7 is the Ex- Member of the College run by applicant no.1, accused no.19 is the member of K.R. Ketkar Junior College, run by the said Institution while applicant no.8 is the Vice Principal of the said College. Applicant no.28 to 31 are Head Masters of the schools run by the Education Society/applicant no.1. Applicant no.2,3,5,7,9 and 14 are the ex-members of the Managing Committee of the applicant no.1 while applicant no.6 is the present Chairman of the Managing Committee. Applicants no.10 to 13 and applicants no.15 to 17 are the present Managing Committee members of the applicant no.1. The various schools and colleges run by the applicant no.1 are recognized/approved by the State Government and they are Grant-in- Aid institutions. 10 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 6. Applicant no.1 in Cri.Appl.No.3812/2007 is the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division Nashik and at the time of filing of the application, he was Joint Director of Education, having office at Pune, while applicant no.2 is the District Education Officer (Secondary) of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. It is stated across the bar on behalf of the applicants that the original complainant/respondent no.1 in the first application and respondent no.2 in the second application filed the complaint on 13/02/2007 in Chalisgaon Police Station and on the basis of said complaint, CR No.90/2007 was registered for the offences u/s. 192, 201, 204, 108, 109, 120-B, 418, 464, 465, 420, 468, 471, 427 r/w. 34 of The IPC against the applicants in both the applications. The gist of the said complaint is that the excess work hours were shown about the workload of the teaching staff in the institution, run by the first applicant. While showing the excess work hours/work load of the teaching staff, the strength of the student was shown excess than the actual strength of the students. It is also alleged that some alterations were made about the subjects in the forms submitted by the students at the time of admission. There is further allegation that less meritorious candidates were appointed when the meritorious candidates were available for recruitment, by corrupt practice in staff selection. There is also an allegation that the candidates from open category/OBC category were appointed when the posts are reserved for the candidates of reserved category. 11 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for applicants took me through the contents of the complaint. My attention is drawn towards the contention that a meeting of the members of the Managing Committee was called for the recruitment of the teaching staff for the subjects Marathi, English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology, which are reserved for Special Backward Class. As per the resolution passed, an advertisement was published in the newspaper for the recruitment of Full Time Lecturer for Hindi subject and for part time lecturer to teach English subject in K.R. Ketkar Junior College, Chalisgaon, which are reserved for Special Backward Class. It is further alleged in the complaint that in response to the said advertisement, applications were submitted by number of candidates from the special Backward class, so also some of the O.B.C. Candidates. Even though the candidates are available from the Special Backward Class, by corrupt practice, candidate from OBC category was selected for the post reserved for special backward class candidate. Thus it is alleged that false record is prepared by the Institution to show favour to the candidate from O.B.C. Category, by not considering the claim of the available meritorious candidate from Special Backward Class. Thereafter the proposal was submitted for approval of the selected O.B.C. Candidate, to applicants no.1 and 2. in the second application, who approved that proposal and according to the original complainant, there was a criminal conspiracy hatched by the applicants to select the candidate from O.B.C. Category and appointed on the post reserved for the candidate from S.B.C. 12 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 Category, by creating forged and frivolous documents, which was also accepted by the officers from Education Department. 9. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that so far as the selection of the candidate from O.B.C. Category, on the post reserved for S.B.C. Category is concerned, the unsuccessful candidate has challenged that selection before the proper forum, who have turned down the claim of the unsuccessful candidate and now that litigation is pending before this Court. It is further urged that as such litigation is pending, the allegations in the complaint that the criminal conspiracy hatched by the applicants in both the applications, selected the candidate from open category on the post reserved for S.B.C. Category, will not amount to criminal offence as the matter is subjudiced before the High Court. It is further urged by pointing out the allegations in the complaint in respect of false strength of students that the strength of the students is shown more than the students admitted in K.R.Ketkar College, is also incorrect. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that at the time of admission, students have taken certain subjects, which they have changed during the mid-term. It is the prerogative of the Management to allow such change in the subjects of the students, which they have mentioned in their admission form, but during the same academic year. So far as this change in subjects is concerned, it will not amount to any illegal benefit by way of Grant-in-Aid from the Government, as alleged in the complaint. According to these 13 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 applicants, even though the students have changed their subjects and there is difference in subject wise students, at the time of admission in the Institution, but there is no change in the total strength of the students and in view of this, it can not be said that by showing fake strength of the students, Grant-in-Aid was obtained from the Government, which according to the complainant is an offence that the benefit of Grand-in-Aid was obtained on the basis of fake strength of students. It is further urged that in reply to his notice, certain information was provided to the complainant, hence it can not be said that a false record is prepared by the Management. It is lastly urged that entire allegations in the complaint are frivolous and devoid of any substance. It is also urged that respondent no. 1/original complainant is in habit of filing false and frivolous complaints. List of such complaints is annexed with the additional affidavit in reply. It is contended that the impugned complaint is lodged by the respondent no.1, as he was interested in being appointed as a co-opted member of the Managing Committee, but inspite of repeated insistence since he could not succeed in getting appointment as co-opted Managing Committee Member, with ulterior motive and with a view to pressurize the applicants in these applications, he has filed the present complaint. In these circumstances, for the grounds mentioned in para no.9(i) to (vi) prayed to quash and set aside the said complaint. . It is also urged that even though the allegations made in the complaint are accepted as it is, it do not disclose any commission of offence against the 14 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 applicants. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for applicants have also brought to my notice the report submitted by the Education Officer, addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik, which was forwarded to the P.I. Chalisgaon Police Station, in response to his correspondence, as during the investigation carried out, certain information was called for by the Police Department/Investigation Agency to find out whether any criminal offence can be detected on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. So also from the record collected during the investigation and forwarded to the Education Department, it revealed that considering the overall effect of the strength of students, which is sent for approval, and which was approved, no financial loss is caused to the Government due to subject wise change of students. Learned counsel for applicants relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana versus Bhajanlal and others, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, so also on the observations in the matter of Pepsi Foods versus Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 4084 that the High Court has powers to exercise the jurisdiction u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. Reliance is also placed on the observations of the Apex Court about the exercise of its inherent powers, if the complaint does not disclose any offence, then how the powers to be exercised in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and another versus State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 AIR SCW 1521, and of the observations of the 15 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 M/S.Astec Life Sciences Ltd., and others versus State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1054, about the allegations in the complaint and the effect of it. By relying on the observations in the matter of Neelu Chopra and another versus Bharli, 2009 AIR SCW 6683, and in the matter of Hareshchandra Kumar D versus Rabatilata Koley Elc. 2011 AIR SCW 1999, learned counsel for applicants prayed to allow the applications by quashing and setting aside the FIR impugned. 10. These submissions are adopted by the learned counsel for the applicants in second application. In reply, it is urged on behalf of the original complainant that the complaint clearly discloses that the applicants in the first application, being members of the Managing Committee are responsible for the acts of the applicant no.1 Institution, who has passed the resolution for the selection and recruitment of the staff, for the post specially reserved for the candidate from Special Backward Class and to adjust the suitable candidate from other than the Special Backward Class, false record is created to show the disability of the deserving meritorious candidate from the Special Backward Class, to achieve the goal to recruit the candidate from open category or from OBC category in place of the available meritorious candidate from the Special Backward Class, which amounts to an offence of preparation and fabrication of the false record, and to submit it to the Education Department and 16 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 approved and accepted by the applicants in second application, amounts to a conspiracy. It is further tried to urge that the information, which was sought by the complainant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicates that, at the material time, considering the work load, there was need to appoint the teacher on the clock hour basis. By showing the fake strength of students, particularly to teach Hindi and History subjects, which strength is mentioned at 3-4 places in the complaint, the Management had cheated the Government to grant Grant-in-Aid for the payment of that teacher, when there is no workload available for the full time teacher. It is further urged that the appointment of teacher Shri.Suryawanshi clearly indicates that even though there was no work-load to teach as a Full time teacher, but work load is available only to teach on clock hour basis, he was appointed as full time teacher and for that purpose, the strength of the students, which is shown, is false strength and which is also reflected from the chart submitted during inquiry by the Education Officer which clearly amounts to preparation of false record, creation of false document, utilisation of the false document for the wrongful gain to the concerned teacher, so also to the Institution and wrongful loss to the Government. He has further urged that it is not necessary that the complaint should disclose the ingredient of each and every offence alleged, but it is a matter of investigation, during which, the requisite material to establish the charge is to be collected. It is also urged that merely because civil remedy is available, the criminal complaint 17 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 can not be discarded/thrown at the threshold by holding that the criminal complaint is un-warranted. According to him, the material placed on record is sufficient to indicate that the members of the Management i.e. the applicants in collusion with the officers from the Education Department, have created false and fabricated documents, and on the basis of those fabricated documents, cheated the Government for the wrongful gain to the concerned and wrongful loss to the Government and hatched a conspiracy to that effect and considering this aspect, the application for quashing of FIR be rejected. 11. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the matter of Pratibha versus Rameshwari Devi and others, 2007(6) Supreme 554, M.Nayandas versus State of Karnatake and others, 2003(6) Supreme 863, Mrs.Rupan Deol Bajaj and another versus Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, State of Panjab versus Pritamchand and others, 2009 (2) Supreme 23, Rajesh Bajaj versus State NCT of Delhi and others, 1999(2) Supreme 442, Prabhakar S/o.Gangadhar Hejib Versus State of Maharashtra, through Police Station officer, ALL MR (Cri) (2009) 961, Mahesh Chaudhary versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439, T Vengama Naidu versus T.Dora Swamy Naidu and others, 2007 (2) Supreme 661. 18 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 12. Learned APP has supported the stand taken by the complainant on the ground that the points raised by the applicants in defence are not sufficient to quash the FIR lodged against them. 13. In the light of these submissions, first of all it is necessary to consider the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of M/s.Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd, versus M/s. Rajvir Industries Ltd., and others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1683, wherein it is observed that, “ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. Although it is true that in a large number of disputes which should ordinarily be determined only by the Civil Courts, criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal namely to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The Courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice, but, on the other cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine.” (Emphasis supplied). 19 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 14. It is observed by the Apex Court in the matter of Pratibha versus Rameshwari Devi and others, 2007(6) Supreme 554 that, “merely because a proceeding is pending in a Civil Court, can not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings It is not open to the High Court to rely on the report of the investigation agency, nor can it direct the report to be submitted before it.” Similar are the observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Panjab versus Pritamchand and others, 2009(2) SC 23, wherein it is also observed that, “merely because an act has a civil profile, it is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. A criminal case may arise even when breach of contract is also there. In that event, there is no bar for prosecution under the Criminal Law.” Similar are the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Mahesh Chaudhary versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439, wherein it is held that, “the dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature.” In the judgment of Pratibha versus Rameshwaridevi (cited supra), it is observed in para no.5 and 6 that the High Court, in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, while exercising power u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., is entitle to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceeding or a FIR when the allegations made in the same do not disclose the commission of an offence and it depends 20 Cri.Appl.No.1875 of 2007 with Cri.Appl.No.3812 of 2007 upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 15. Further it is observed in the matter of M.Narayandas versus State of Karnataka and others, 2003(6) Supreme 863 that,“It must also be mentioned that it is settled law that the power to quash must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It must be exercised in the rarest of rare cases. It is also settled law that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Court also cannot inquire whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established or not.” Similar are the observations in the matter of Mrs.Rupan Deol Bajaj and another versus Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 Crimes SC, page 4. 16. It is observed