1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 32102-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 *** Balbir Singh Khurana. .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking quashing of complaint No.20 dated 3.1.2004 titled Thakur Rajiv Singh Vs. Yoginder Kumar Sud and Ors. pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jallandhar as also the subsequent proceedings taken therein including summoning order dated 8.10.2008 by dint of which the petitioner has been summoned under Sections 326, 447 IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that 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. Moreover, the learned Magistrate, on the strength of the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant-respondent in the shape of testimonies of the complainant himself, his wife and one Tafial Masih coupled with the testimony of Dr. Harpreet Singh, who on examination detected fracture of right tibia bone on the leg of complainant, which prima facie establishes the commission of offence under Sections 326, 447 IPC, rightly summoned the petitioner. He has been specifically named by the complainant as the assailant who caused the said injury to him. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the 2 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, in which the present case does not fall. 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 December 5,2008 Jiten