JUDGMENT 1. 1. The Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota has framed charge against four petitioners for the under Sections 307 and 307,34 IPC, this has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The story of the prosecution is that on 12th September, 1988 at about 3.00 P.M. at a time when the complainant Shambhu Lal was keeping a watch over his field,the accused petitioners Gopi, Bhurelal, Mohan Lal and others came there and when they (accused) were prevented from cutting the 'dhora', accused petitioners Kishan lal and Gopi Lal fired on the complainant and in the first information report, weapons were named as 12 bore and pistol but not even a single pellet struck the complainant. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no prima facie ground for proceeding against the petitioners because the alleged incident did not take place at all. No pellet hit the complainant and no pellet was recovered from the area where the guns are said to have been fired. Even the weapons recovered ate 'Topidar' guns and not 12 bore or revolver. It is also contended that the witnesses of the incident examined by the police are good friends of the complainant and not it single independent witness has been examined. The two witnesses examined live far away from the place of the occurrence and had according to him come to visit the complainant, Chotulal. The first information report was lodged after three days and in the first information report, I persons were named as accused but challan has been filed against three only. On basis of this material it has been contended that the case against the petitioners is baseless. On the other hand it is contended that the petitioners have lodged a case against the complainant about the incident on the same day. 3. On the other hand, the 'earned Public Prosecutor has contended that there are eye witnesses to the incident who are independent persons and the case against the petitioners cannot be said to be false. 4. I have considered the contentions and perused the challan paper which are with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Only two witnesses of the incident have been examined. In the evidence it has come that a number of persons came there and intervened but they have not been examined by the police. 4. I have considered the contentions and perused the challan paper which are with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Only two witnesses of the incident have been examined. In the evidence it has come that a number of persons came there and intervened but they have not been examined by the police. There is no injury of any kind to the complainant or any other persons and no pellet has been recovered from the site of occurrence. The explanation for lodging the FIR after three days is also different as given in the FIR itself and the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. This is a case of alleged gun shot and after hearing gun shot, it is natural that a number of persons would collect at Cite scene but evidence to that effect was not collected. The guns, which have been recovered from the petitioners were recovered from their house at the farm and there is nothing to show that on the examination they were found to have been fired recently. Considering all these circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution of the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice the case against them deserves to be quashed. The charge framed against the petitioners is therefore, quashed and tile petitioners are discharged for the :Hence under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC. This petition is accordingly accepted.Petition Accepted. *******