Criminal Misc. No. M-37512 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-37512 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2011. Prince ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Prince along with Susheel, Nitin and Sudhir is facing trial in case bearing First Information Report (for short 'FIR') No.39 dated January 23rd, 2011, under Sections 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad. He seeks quashing of FIR by filing this petition. 2. Allegations in brief against the petitioner and his co-accused are that on January 23rd, 2011, they assembled on the turning of Government Tubewell No.112/8 bypass road Faridabad at about 12.15 AM for the purpose of committing dacoity. Police received secret information. They reached the spot and noticed the accused making preparation for committing dacoity, that is, Susheel told the petitioner to stop vehicle going towards Delhi by showing torch light and he told Nitin that after the car is stopped, he would put revolver against the temple of the driver to take the keys of the car and Sudhir, Gaurav and Tara would commit dacoity at the point of knife. All the accused were apprehended at the spot. Country made pistol was recovered from the person of Nitin. 3. The ground, on which, quashing of the FIR is sought is that a few days earlier, FIR No.65 dated March 15th, 2010, under Sections 148, 285, 323, 324, 452 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act was registered in Police Station Ballabhgarh against the accused on the statement of Criminal Misc. No. M-37512 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Hansveer Singh, maternal uncle of Prince that accused came to his house and caused injuries to him and Prince. The present FIR was registered against the petitioner to pressurize him to withdraw the said case. 4. The remedy of quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an ordinary one. It will be available to the petitioner only if it is established that the allegations do not make out an offence and that the continuing of the criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. Here the allegations are specific which prima-facie make out a case against the petitioner and his co- accused. The trial cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law by any stretch of the imagination. It is rather unfortunate and reprehensible that the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are being brought to be invoked in a matter which is to be decided on merits of the evidence led. In fact, this Court is constrained to observe that it is the petitioner who is out to abuse the process of law by filing this frivolous petition. 5. Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is dismissed. 13.12.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) neetu JUDGE