1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 31420-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.10.2009 *** Kirpal Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 5 dated 13.1.2007, under Sections 323, 324, 506 IPC, registered against them at Police Station Basti Jodhowal, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings thereto. The impugned FIR has been got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners, who are none else, but her relatives, with the allegations that on 13.1.2007 petitioner Kirpal Singh gave a knife blow on her right wrist; the other persons gave her as well as her brothers and sisters beatings and also torn their clothes. Although it has been contended that the impugned FIR is counter blast to the complaint moved against Surjit Kaur, the mother of respondent No.2, who was earlier married to petitioner No.1 and were granted divorce by the Court; the complainant and her mother wants to occupy the house of petitioner No.1 and that the alleged occurrence, on enquiry by SP(D) was found false as per enquiry report (Annexure P-3), but a bare perusal of the paper book reveals that the parties are having strained relations. The petitioners have specifically been named in the FIR, involved in the alleged commission of offence. Moreover, in the reply filed on behalf 2 of the State, it is their categoric stand that on the basis of intensive enquiry conducted by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sahnewal, Ludhiana, the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence was found and as such challan against them has been filed in the Court. Both the sides are staking their claims on the basis of some enquiries conducted in the matter, favouring them. 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. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the 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, which is lacking in this case. 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 petitioners, on merits. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 28,2009 Jiten