Crl. Misc. No. M-3001 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3001 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 12.05.2011 Rajbir Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. GP Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Rajbir Singh for quashing of FIR No. 369 dated 27.12.2008 registered under Sections 148/323/324/325/326/506 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Hansi, District Hisar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the inquiry conducted by the police, the petitioner was not found involved in the alleged occurrence but subsequently he has been summoned to face the trial. Learned counsel further contends that presence of the petitioner at the place of alleged occurrence is doubtful from the location of the mobile tower. Moreover fresh evidence was there before the trial Court to summon the petitioner and on the basis of same very evidence, the petitioner was already not found involved in the alleged occurrence by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Crl. Misc. No. M-3001 of 2011 (2) Apex Court in Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 504 in support of his contention. Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents available on record. The main grouse of the petitioner is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and even the presence of petitioner at the place of alleged occurrence is doubtful on the basis of tower location of mobile. In summoning order, a detailed discussion with regard to evidence cannot be there as the evidence is not to be appreciated at the time of summoning. It is a matter of evidence whether the petitioner was present at the place of alleged occurrence or not. Simply by stating that on the basis of mobile calls, the presence of the petitioner was doubtful cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. Moreover, specific allegations are there in the FIR against the petitioner that he was armed with pistol and caused injuries. The trial is at the evidence stage and it would not be proper to discuss anything with regard to such facts, which are neither before this Court nor before the trial Court. All facts mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a subject matter of trial and the same cannot be taken into consideration. No ground is made out to quash the aforesaid FIR. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. May 12, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE