Criminal Misc. No. M-34365 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-34365 of 2009 Date of decision : 01.09.2011 Anil and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Shailender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Anil Kumar Rathee, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 243 dated 05.07.2009 registered against the petitioners under sections 323, 341 & 506 IPC at police station Narnaund, Hisar. Quashing of the instant FIR has been sought on the ground that allegations levelled in the same are totally unbelievable. The story narrated therein appears to be concocted. In any case no offence is made out from bare perusal of the FIR, thus, same deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that pursuant to FIR, investigation was carried out and challan was presented against the three accused. Last date before the trial court fixed for consideration of charge was 27.01.2010. He submits that investigating Criminal Misc. No. M-34365 of 2009 2 agency has collected sufficient evidence pointing to complicity of petitioners in the commission of crime. Heard. FIR was lodged by Vijay Singh Mann (respondent No. 2 herein). He alleged that on 04.07.2009 when he was cultivating his land, he was attacked by the accused. While one of the accused was having kerosene oil in his hand, Anil attacked the complainant on the head with axe. The complainant was overpowered by Anil and Ashish. Thereafter, accused Bimla poured kerosene oil upon the complainant. An amount of `12,000/- was also stolen by the accused. The complainant was, however, saved by certain persons who came on the spot. In view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, no case for quashing thereof is made out. The allegations can only be proved after some evidence is led before the court below. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. September 01, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE