JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners under Section 186 IPC in Cr. case No. 11/2005 pending before Judicial Magistrate Kathoomar, District Alwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "On 28th December, 2004, when the petitioner no. 1 went to his agriculture fields for the purpose of watering, Station House Officer, Kathoomar District Alwar and two other police personnel came there and started misbehaved with him. On that account, the petitioner no. 1, on 28.12.2004, filed complaint. The said complaint was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In order to counter blast that complaint filed by the petitioner, a false case has been registered against the petitioners under Section 186 IPC. 3. Earlier the petitioners filed a petition which was numbered as S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 430/2007.0n 29.7.2011, Public Prosecutor Mr. Pradeep Shrimal stated that in this matter, the F.R. has been submitted. Due to this reason, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous and liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, if they need so." 4. The order dated 29.7.2011 is reproduced as under: "None present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the FR has been filed and this misc. petition has become infructuous. In view of the above, this misc. petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh misc. petition at the appropriate stage in case he is advised to do so." 5. After that, the petitioners have filed a fresh petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter. In the complaint filed by the petitioners, the Police has not submitted a report before the Court concerned, which shows the mala fide intention of the police persons. Prima facie, on reading the complaint filed by the police, it does not disclose commission of any offence, on the contrary, by lodging the complaint by the police persons, they have misused their power and position and just to lower down the prestige of petitioner no. 1, who is a law abiding citizen and an Advocate practicing in High Court as well as in trial court; and petitioner no.2 is a respectable person. 1, who is a law abiding citizen and an Advocate practicing in High Court as well as in trial court; and petitioner no.2 is a respectable person. They have not committed any offence previously, hence the criminal proceedings instituted against them should be quashed and set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.Section 186 IPC is reproduced as under: "186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions:- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the language of Section 186 IPC, prima-facie it seems that this complaint was filed against the petitioners just to counter blast the complaint, which had been filed by the petitioners before the Court concerned. In my view there is no such evidence, which is closes the commission of offence by the petitioners, hence I set-aside the Cr. Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate, Kathoomar in Cr. Case No. 11/2005 against the petitioners. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to appear before the Court concerned. 10. The Cr. Misc. Petition stands allowed, as indicated here-in-above. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******