JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.77/2014 dated 01.08.2014 of Police Station, Sandwa, District Churu for the offences punishable under sections 379 and 427 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Sugan Chand, Patwari of area concerned has lodged a complaint under the directions of the Tehsildar Bidasar while alleging that there is a tree of Khejri (Prosopis Cineraria) in village Berasar and the accused persons cut its branches and took them away. On the basis of the said report, the police has registered the FIR No.77/2014, contents of which are as follows: " vkt fnukad 1-8-2014 ds oDr 2-00 ih,e ij Jh lqxupUn iq= cnzhizlkn tkfr eh.k mez 26 lky fu0 vaxkjh Fkkuk Fkkukxkth gky gYdk iVokjh cEcw e; fujh{kd ( Hkw0v0 ) o'r lk.Mok Jh deynso iq= jkes'ojyky tkfr czkgkz.k fuoklh okMZ ua0 3 lqtkux<+ ds gkftj Fkkuk gksdj ,d fyf[kr fjiksVZ cnh etequ] " lsok esa Jheku~ S.H.O lk0 lk.Mok fo"k; F.I.R. NtZ djokus ckcr & izlax Jheku~ rglhynkj lk0 chnklj dk vkns'k fnukad 31-7-2014 egksnu fuosnu gS fd cSjklj esa iVokjh gYdk cEcw dh fjiksVZ vuqlkj /kkfeZd laLdkj okyh [kstM+h dks tsBkjke iq= lqxukjke tkV] equhjke iq= lqxujke tkV] lqxukjke iq= fd'kukjke tkV fuoklh cSjklj }kjk 'kk[kkvksa ls dkVk tkdj tsBkjke iq= xqxukjke tkV cSjklj }kjk mBk dj ys tk;k x;k crk;k gSA mDr fu;ekuqlkj F.I.R. ntZ djus dh d'ik djsA ,lMh deynso] deynso fujh{kd Hkw0v0 o'r lkaMok] " is'k dh & etequ fjiksVZ ls ekeyk tqeZ /kkjk 379] 427 Hkknl dk ?kfVr gksuk ik;k tkus ij eqdnek uEcj 77@2014 /kkjk 379] 427 Hkknl esa ntZ dj rQ~rh'k 'kq: gqbZA " 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR. It is submitted that the said Khejri (Prosopis Cineraria) tree is situated adjacent to the residential house of the petitioners and due to storm, its branches broke down and fell into the house of the petitioners about eight months back from the date of filing of the FIR. It is contended that the petitioners have not committed any theft or mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or above and from bare reading of the FIR, the offence of commission of theft or mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. It is contended that the petitioners have not committed any theft or mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or above and from bare reading of the FIR, the offence of commission of theft or mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- is not made out. It is also contended that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of the political opponents of the petitioners and they have been implicated due to malafide, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the FIR and argued that from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, no case for quashing the FIR is made out. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 6. In the impugned FIR, it has nowhere been mentioned that on which date, the petitioners have cut the branches of the Khejri tree. It is to be noticed that it is not stated in the FIR that who was in possession of the branches of the tree and without consent of that person, the petitioners have taken away the said branches. From bare reading of the FIR, the offence punishable under section 379 IPC is not made out against the petitioners. The FIR also does not reveal that on account of the action of the petitioners, any damage or loss has been caused and to whom. Hence, the offence punishable under section 427 IPC is also not made out. 7. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 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. (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 provisions 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 8. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 9. In view of the above circumstances, from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, it cannot be said that any offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case, wherein while applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the FIR can be quashed. 10. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.77/2014 dated 01.08.2014 of Police Station, Sandwa, District Churu is quashed. Stay petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******