Honble SHARMA, J.–Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1) propounded parameters in respect of quashing of FIR, thus– (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officer, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitue only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provi- sions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (2). In view of the aforesaid parameters I proceed to examine the facts of the instant petition. Non-petitioner Ramavtar instituted FIR No. 354/97 with the Police Station Reengus on September 30, 1997 against the petitioner and other three co-accused persons. (2). In view of the aforesaid parameters I proceed to examine the facts of the instant petition. Non-petitioner Ramavtar instituted FIR No. 354/97 with the Police Station Reengus on September 30, 1997 against the petitioner and other three co-accused persons. According to the averments made in the FIR, the accused petitioner and other co-accused persons committed offence under section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act) by calling derrogatory and defamatory words mentioned in the FIR against the non-petitioner and Balai caste. Accused petitioner Sharvan Kumar instituted instant miscellaneous petition for quashing the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the investigation based on the said FIR is wholly illegal and malafide. The said FIR was instituted with ulterior motive and objectives. Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vigorously canvassed that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner muchless to say the one under section 3 of the Act. It has been contended that the father of the petitioner is recorded Khatedar of land bearing khasra No. 3233 and 3233/5888 situated in village Reengus. The well in question is situated in Khasra No. 3233 and since its construction from 1982 it is not at all being used. Informant nonpetitioner Ramavtar earlier filed a suit against the petitioner and his family in the year 1982 and when the suit was failed, the FIR bearing No. 233/96 was lodged in the month of August, 1996. The investigating agency treating the same as false FIR submitted the final report. Therefore again aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioners. (3). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri M.L. Goyal and Shri B.C. Chirania, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner No. 2 contended that it cannot be adjudged at this stage that the allegations made in the FIR are false. Exfacie this court cannot interfere with the investigation made in pursuance of the FIR lodged by the non-petitioner No. 2. (4). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the FIR as well as the other documents placed before me. At this stage I am not in a position to observe that the FIR is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the accused petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. At this stage I am not in a position to observe that the FIR is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the accused petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners do not come in the purview of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore I am not in a position to attract the provisions contained in section 482 Cr.P.C The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage as the investigation is pending. The accused petitioner on file relevant documents before the investigating agency and the investigating agency may perused the documents and reach to the reasonable conclusion. (5). With the aforesaid observations, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 747/97 is dismissed. The case diary may be sent back.