IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-29744/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 26.10.2010. Jagwati and another ....................Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.JS Hooda,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.292 dated 27.8.2010 under Section 376/306/506/120-B IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, PS Saran Faridabad. It is alleged by the petitioner no.1 that her minor daughter Sheetal, aged 14 years was sexually abused by accused Manoj Kumar, Sanjeev @ Bunty, Sudhir and Pardeep. When petitioner no.1 alongwith petitioner no.2, alleged brother of petitioner no.1, approached the police on 19.7.2010 for getting an FIR registered against aforesaid accused, respondent no.3 and 4 (Police officials) molested minor Sheetal and thereatened and pressurised the petitioners to compromise the matter with the accused persons. Thereafter petitioner no.1 filed Crl.M.No.M-28045 of 2010 in this Court and after issuance of notice of motion in the said case FIR No.258 dated 26.7.2010 under Sections 376G/365/120-B and 506 IPC was registered at PS Saran Faridabad. It is alleged by the petitioner no.1 that in order to pressurise the petitioners, now accused persons including respondents 3 and 4 instigated Shweta-elder daughter of petitioner no.1 to lodge a false FIR against petitioners and as such FIR No.292 dated 27.8.2010 under Section 376/306/506/120-B IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, PS Saran Faridabad has been registered against the petitioners at the behest of aforesaid Shweta-elder daughter of petitioner no.1. With these averments, a prayer for quashing the FIR No.292 dated 27.8.2010 has been made. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, in my opinion, no such direction, as prayed for can be granted. The allegations made in the FIR No.292 dated 27.8.2010 are serious and have been made by none else than the elder daughter-Shweta of petitioner no.1, wherein she has named petitioner no.2 who allegedly used to sexually abuse her. No material worth the name has been shown which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. Dismissed. 26.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge