JUDGMENT : B.M. Lal, J. Smt. Prem Lata Sawhney, Sri Rajiv Sawhney and Sri Sanjiv Sawhney, invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 18-11-1991 lodged at police station Civil Lines Allahabad tide crime No. 189 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC against them. 2. In short the facts leading to this petition are as under. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Premlata Sawhney is a practicing advocate of this Court and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 Rajiv Sawhney and Sanjiv Sawhney aged about 21 and 19 years respectively are the sons of Petitioner No. 1. Late C.P. Sawhney, the husband of Petitioner No. 1 was Superintendent in Defence department, who died in harness. 4. It is alleged that the complainant Sajiwan Lal aged about 45 years son of late Masuriyadin Chaurasiya, resident of 5, Shambhoo Barrick Allahabad lodged a first information report against the Petitioners at about 9.15 A.M. on 18-11-91 alleging that Petitioner No. 1 Smt. P.L. Sawhney instigated her two sons, the Petitioners 2 and 3, to commit murder of Sajiwan Lal as a result of which both of them caused fire arm injuries on Sajiwan Lal. 5. It is further alleged that Sajiwan Lal was medically examined in S.R.N. Government Hospital Allahabad on the same day. The alleged incident took place at the Civil Lines Allahabad in piesence of two eye witnesses. After receipt of medical report the police registered aforesaid case. 6. According to the Petitioners they have been falsely implicated in aforesaid case and on 18-11-91 all the Petitioners had gone to attend the marriage party and when they returned home at about 10 P.M. they were informed by the neighbours that police party of Police Station Civil Lines had come to arrest them in connection with an incident of firing which took place in Civil Lines in the morning hours of the day. 7. The Petitioners were further apprised of the alleged incident through the English Daily News Paper 'Pioneer' published from Allahabad. 8. It is further alleged that the Petitioners made efforts to obtain copy of the First Information Report but it was of no avail. 7. The Petitioners were further apprised of the alleged incident through the English Daily News Paper 'Pioneer' published from Allahabad. 8. It is further alleged that the Petitioners made efforts to obtain copy of the First Information Report but it was of no avail. According to the Petitioners the alleged crime against them is motivated to harass them so that they may vacate the house in which they are residing as tenant. 9. On 21-11-1991 this Court directed the Respondents to supply a copy of the First Information Report and as such the same was supplied to the petitioners. 10. On 7-1-1992 Sajiwin Lal the complainant moved an impleadment application which was allowed on the same day and as such he has been impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the petition. 11. From time to time this case was adjourned for one reason or the other at the instance of petitioner or the Respondents. Last this Bench is nominated by Hon'ble the Chief justice for adjudicating this case. Numerous documents has been filed by the respective parties in support of their case 12. It will not be out of place to mention here that till date no charge sheet has been presented in the aforesaid case, though during the course of arguments it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that investigation is in progress and charge sheet is likely to be served very. 13. The bone of contention raised on behalf of Petitioners for quashing the First Information Report is that no case for the offence punishable u/s 147/148/149/307 IPL is made our against the Petitioners and their implication in the alleged offence is false, Vetatious and motivated. In support of their submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioners shown us numerous documents filed by the Petitioners as stated above and also argued on the plea of alibi. 14. Since the charge sheet is yet to be submitted and the Petitioners have not been put trial therefore at this stage it would not be proper for this Court to express any view on merits of the case. 14. Since the charge sheet is yet to be submitted and the Petitioners have not been put trial therefore at this stage it would not be proper for this Court to express any view on merits of the case. Even considering for the respective parties, any whisper of inference drawn from the unauthentice documents at this stage, may prejudice the case of either party, there fore, this Court is confining its discussion to the relevant legal aspects for the purpose as to whether the impugned First Information Report deserves to be quashed or not. 15. This Court is conscious of the point that quashing of a First Information Report which is a statutory investigation u/s 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing of charge sheet are two different legal aspects. 16.Which considering the quashing of a charge sheet, entire record of the prosecution comes before the Court including the evidence collected against the accuse u/s 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court applies its mind to find out as to whether the allegations leveled in the First Information Report are supported by the statements of witnesses on its face value and accepted in it is entirety, it discloses any offence or not and if it discloses no offence, pending trial, may certainly be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. But while considering the quashing of First Information Report the scope of quashing a First Information Report cannot be lost sight of. The lodging of First Information Report u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure which is investigating, is just to bring the police machinery in motion First Information Report, nothing remains before the Court except the First for quashing the First Information Report itself and therefore, u/s 482 CPC the scope for squashing the First Information Report is very limited. The lodging of First Information Report u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure which is investigating, is just to bring the police machinery in motion First Information Report, nothing remains before the Court except the First for quashing the First Information Report itself and therefore, u/s 482 CPC the scope for squashing the First Information Report is very limited. However the Courts are not loathed in squashing the First Information Report where the First Information Report discloses no offence punishable under the IPC or where there is any impediment in filing the charge sheet but which arriving at a conclusion for quashing the First information Report Court cannot probe into the question whether the allegations made in the First Information Report are reliable or not as at this stage there is no occasion to test the veracity of the statement made by the informant while lodging the First Information Report. (See State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 561 18. These two broad distinctions must be kept in mind while dealing with the cases of quashing the First Information Report and quashing the charge sheet. The case in hand is for quashing the FIR dated 18-11-91. 19. The King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad 1945 PC 18, it has been ruled that by the inherent jurisdiction if it involves appreciation of evidence, the police investigation in pursuance of the First Information Report cannot be quashed, 20. For constituting the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder simple requirement is that whosoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act causes death he would be guilty of murder This being the simple requirement to constitute an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, no further dissection of the incident for separating the chaff from the grain is required at this stage. To constitute an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC it requires two necessary elements i.e. mensrea (guilty intention) and act us reun (act of the person complained against). To constitute an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC it requires two necessary elements i.e. mensrea (guilty intention) and act us reun (act of the person complained against). This being the test, if in the First Information Report simply the allegations have been made against the accused persons that an attempt was made to commit the murder, certainly the investigating agency shall proceed for investigating the crime alleged In this background only the, First Information Report lodged by the informant Sajiwanlal on 18-11-91 against the Petitioners be seen. That is all which could be done at this stage while considering the prayer of the Petitioners for quashing the First Information Report. 21. While dealing with similar situation in the recent pronouncement the Apex Court, in State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhaja Lal 1992 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 335, held that Court will not go into the question of reliability and proof of the allegations made in the First Information Report and the First Information Report is not liable to be quashed. 22. The same view has been further reiterated in State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another AIR 1991 SC 1260 , and further it has been rule that quashing of First Information Report is no a Rule but the exception under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and while quashing the First Information Report the Court may simply probe into the First Information Report only to the extent whether uncontroverted allegations made therein and the evidence collected in support of the same do constitute the Commission of offence or not against the accused. This view is also taken in Chaudhary Bhajan Lal's case, supra. 23. Now this being the touchstone and she facts and circumstances of the instant case are considered in that light, though numerous documents making the record bulky, have been filed in support of the contention that no case is made out against the Petitioners, the said documents cannot be treated as evidence as this Court cannot convert itself into the trial court. 24. This being so, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners M/s. V.C. Misra and wall with great vehemence, are of no avail and no useful propose would, be seived in discussing their arguments of this score at this stage. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have drawn our attention to the recent pronouncement in Criminal Misc. 24. This being so, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners M/s. V.C. Misra and wall with great vehemence, are of no avail and no useful propose would, be seived in discussing their arguments of this score at this stage. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have drawn our attention to the recent pronouncement in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29 of 1990 Captan Satish Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh dated 29-8-91 by the Lucknow Bench and contended that pending proceedings against Captan Satlsh Kumar Sharma in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur has been quashed. 25. Having discussed at some length on the subject, it is needless to make much emphasis and Captan Satish Kumar Sharma's case, supra. That was a case for quashing the charge-sheet and not for quashing the First Information Report and in that context while discussion entire case law on the subject, pending proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur have been quashed and as such facts of that case are distinguishable to the facts of instant case. 26. Before summing up the arguments learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that entire case as set up by the prosecution is not far from doubt in as much as the offence has taken place in the broad day light at 9.15 A.M. in the busy mercantile vicinity of the holy city of Allahabad and by now a complete year is going to expire from the date of occurrence, yet the Petitioners have not been charge-sheeted so far. Besides this as submitted during the course of arguments on behalf of Respondents, the prosecution agency pointing out that eye witnesses are not of the same vicinity but arc residents of villages of Allahabad district, creates doubt in volumes and shows that the prosecution case as set up is far from the truth and therefore let the matter be investigated by the C.B.C.I.D. 27. This ground though has not been taken in the body of the writ petition simply because petition was filed immediately of the First Information Report was lodged and at that stags there was no occasion for the Petitioners to take this ground, this Prayer has not been vebementaliy opposed by the Respondents. 28. This ground though has not been taken in the body of the writ petition simply because petition was filed immediately of the First Information Report was lodged and at that stags there was no occasion for the Petitioners to take this ground, this Prayer has not been vebementaliy opposed by the Respondents. 28. From the discussions aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court no interference at this stage is called for quashing the First Information Report and to this extent the prayer of the Petitioners is repelled However, while considering the last submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, this Court feels that in ail fairness let the investigation of this case be transferred to C.B.C.I.D. Allahabad Sector. Accordingly the Home Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue necessary directions to the C.B.C.I.D. to investigate the crime No. 189 of 1991 registered at police station Civil Lines Allahabad and to submit its report within 4 months from today to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Allahabad and also to this Court. 29. The interim order dated 7-1-92 passed by this Court shall continue till further orders of this Court. 30. Officer is directed to list this petition for further orders after four months.