JUDGMENT Oral : - 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./ Case Crime No.575 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 457, 352, 323, 504, 506, 307, 342 I.P.C., Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao. 2. Order dated 4.3.2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioners. The order, when extracted, reads as under : "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./ Case Crime No.575 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 457, 352, 323, 504, 506, 307, 342 I.P.C., Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that for allegedly causing one contusion on the person of one person, 34 named persons have been arrayed as accused. 30 persons are unnamed. 3. Issue notice to respondent no.4, returnable on 6.4.2016. 4. List this case on 6.4.2016. 5. Let investigation be monitored by Circle Officer incharge of Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao. Investigating officer is directed to file his reply as to how the implication of more than 60 persons as accused, is justified for one injury. 6. The petitioners shall not be taken in custody, till the next date of listing. Petitioners are directed to join investigation. " 3. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the prosecuting agency in Court, which is taken on record. 4. None has appeared for the petitioners to prosecute the case. 5. Perusal of the counter affidavit indicates that the investigation is being monitored by Circle Officer regularly. Investigation was initiated, initially, against 34 persons. Eighteen persons have already been charge-sheeted. In the context of fourteen persons, investigation is going on. It has further been clarified that it has wrongly been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that only one person has received injuries. In fact, four police personnel were injured in the incident. 6. Considering the contents of the counter affidavit, portion of which has been referred above, we find no ground to interfere. 7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in context of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1992 SC 604 : State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. 8. 7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in context of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1992 SC 604 : State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has summarised the conditions, under which the Court may consider quashing of proceedings, in the following terms : "108. 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 extraordinary 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 powers 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 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 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. 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. 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." 9. We do not find that the case of the petitioners falls within any of the conditions provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above extracted portion of the judgment. 10. Under the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 11. The petition is dismissed.