1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 21682-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 *** Sajjan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.593 dated 21.6.2009, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 379, 148 and 149 IPC, registered against him and others under Sections at Police Station Sadar, Hisar and subsequent proceedings thereto. The impugned FIR has been got registered by respondent No.2 Smt. Kamlesh against six persons, including the petitioner, with the allegations that all of them after constituting an unlawful assembly inflicted injuries upon her and also snatched her gold ornaments, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. Although it has been contended that the impugned FIR is counter blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 and others; it is the petitioner who is in possession over the land and that the petitioner was even not present at the time of the occurrence, but a bare perusal of the paper book reveals that the parties are having strained relations on account of some dispute over the land. The petitioner has specifically named in the FIR as one of the assailants, involved in the alleged commission of offence. The pleas on which the quashing has been sought involve disputed questions of fact and can only be ascertained by the trial court at an appropriate stage. There is no dispute that no hard and fast 2 rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing of the FIR, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases, which is lacking in this case. This Court is not required to determine a disputed question of fact, at this stage. Thus, the present petition deserves dismissal. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without prejudice to the case of the petitioner, on merits. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 10,2009 Jiten