JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”), for quashing of the FIR No.123 dated 05.05.2013, registered under Sections 307/506/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind. 2. Before I deal with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to the FIR registered against the petitioner, which reads thus:- “To, The SHO, Police Station Sadar, Narwana. It is respectfully prayed that I, Mukesh w/o Sh. Jagpal, caste Jat, am resident of Rajgarh Dhobi. My Paala @ Jagpal does the work of networking in Delhi. I have three children. The eldest is Rajesh, thereafter Partap and the youngest is Lonit. Few days ago, a phone from an unknown number had come at my phone No.8571971914 and had threatened to kill me and my children and said that be ready to bear the consequences of the meddling you have done with brother Harish. The money which you are to take from Harish, forget about it. After this we had lodged a report in the Police Station Narwana. Yesterday, on dated 04.05.2013, a bike had passed 3-+4 times near to our house and today on 05.05.2013 they fired a shot from out of our house which hit at our sleeping room. After this we made a hue & cry, then they ran away by their vehicle. They fired a shot at about fifteen minutes past nine which hit in the sleeping room through window. At that time a bulb of zero watts was glowing in our house. In the window a net and veil like cloth has been placed on the curtain and wire. We are doubtful that Harish S/o Om Parkash Arora, Shere Punjab Dhaba, Mall Road, Nainitaal has fied a shot in our room himself or through his persons to make us frightened and to spread panic, because my father Sh. Jagpal S/o Sh. Kashi Ram has dealings of money with Harish and has registered a case of kidnaping against my father in Chandigarh. Therefore, it is requested that a strict action may be taken against Harish and his unknown persons. Sd/- Mukesh. Mukesh w/o Sh. Jagpal Bainiwal 8571971914.” 3. Jagpal S/o Sh. Kashi Ram has dealings of money with Harish and has registered a case of kidnaping against my father in Chandigarh. Therefore, it is requested that a strict action may be taken against Harish and his unknown persons. Sd/- Mukesh. Mukesh w/o Sh. Jagpal Bainiwal 8571971914.” 3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner, which reads thus:- “You, Harish s/o Om Parkash Arora, Sher-e- Punjab Hotel, resident of Mall Road, Nainital (Utrakhan) is hereby informed that against you, Mukesh wife of jagpal Beniwal, resident of Rajgarh Dobi, on 05.05.2013, has filed an FIR No.123 dated 05.05.2013 under Sections 307/506/34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Narwana. You are hereby directed to join investigation in the above stated case so that case may be proceeded as per law. Copy of the notice is being handed over for your information.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the wife of Jagpal Singh Beniwal who is wanted in FIR No.22 dated 15.01.2013, registered under Section 364-A IPC, at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. He has further submitted that the petitioner has divorced his wife by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 16.06.2012 and Jagpal Singh Beniwal took away his daughter without his permission on account of which he had to register the FIR and his daughter was recovered. He has submitted that the present FIR is a counter-blast by the wife of Jagpal Singh Beniwal in which the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I have found that the petitioner has not raised any legal issue for the purpose of quashing the FIR except giving the facts. The parameters for quashing the FIR have been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 604. It has been held therein that the FIR can be quashed if no case is made out for investigation, but herein, in this case, a suspicion has been raised by the complainant that the petitioner had made an attempt to cause physical harm to her by resorting to fire at her house. 6. It has been held therein that the FIR can be quashed if no case is made out for investigation, but herein, in this case, a suspicion has been raised by the complainant that the petitioner had made an attempt to cause physical harm to her by resorting to fire at her house. 6. This is the stage where the petitioner has been called by the Investigating Officer by serving a notice upon him under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to join the investigation before proceeding further and for that matter, no order for quashing the FIR can be passed in this petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————