JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant petition is constituted, before, this Court, under, the provisions of 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the petitioners seek relief(s) for quashing of F.I.R registered at Police Station Sadar Shimla and also seek relief for quashing of consequent thereto proceedings, pending, before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. 2. The Complainant, one, Mohan Lal instituted a complaint against the accused, petitioners herein ascribing therein vis-a-vis (a) one Promod Sood incriminatory roles of his hurling vituperative(s) upon him (b) His holding him by his neck (c) of, upon Mohan Lal making, an effort to free himself, from, the clutches of accused Promod Sood, thereafter accused Gourav Sood, Shashi Sood and the wife of Promod Sood arriving at the site of occurrence AND, thereupon theirs belabouring him, with kick and fist blow(s). (d) of, accused Gaurav Sood wielding a wooden stick and with user thereof, his inflicting a blow on the chest of Mohan Lal also his meteing threats, of eliminating him. 3. In sequel, to, his being belaboured by all the accused, the aforesaid complainant Mohan Lal, discloses, in the complaint (i) of his falling on the road AND his raising hues and cries hence begetting the presence of one Satya Devi and others at the site of occurrence, with whose efforts, his being evacuated, from, the clutches of the accused. He has also made a narration in the complaint, of, the daughter of Promod Sood, namely, one Rupali Sood clicking photographs with her cell phone camera. 4. Even though, at this stage, when the Investigating Officer concerned, after completing investigations, vis-a-vis the offences, embodied in the F.I.R., has filed a report, under, Section 173, before the learned trial Magistrate AND when thereafter notice, of accusation stands put vis-a-vis all the accused, (i) hence at this stage, it may not be appropriate, for this Court, to arrogate vis-a-vis itself the judicial functions to be performed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, especially when (a) an appraisal of evidence, as existing on record, being interdicted to be delved into by this Court (b) Empathetically for an incisive scrutiny thereof hence for adjudging the guilt or innocence of the accused vis-a-vis the notice of accusation, put to them by the learned trial Court concerned, the latter Court being the solitary repository for making evaluations thereof. 5. 5. Nonetheless, the trite principles which are to be borne in mind by this Court, while, exercising jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are (i) of this Court ensuring precluding any abuse of processes of law vis.a.vis the accused, (ii) its ensuring precluding the befalment of unnecessary harassment and humiliation upon the accused, in sequel to theirs unnecessarily, facing, the ordeal of a protracted trial. Consequently, for ensuring, that, the accused (iii) are not subjected to harassment or humiliation arising from any spite or vendetta reared vis-a-vis them by the complainant AND also for precluding theirs being subjected, to, unnecessary trial besides for preventing abuse of process(es) of law (iv) this Court for doing complete justice, deems it fit, to make discernments, from the evidentionary material qua (v) its making a prima facie disclosure, of the complainant being beaten with a wooden stick, by accused Gaurav Sood. For making the aforesaid disclosures, an allusion, to the apposite MLC, makes, a visible display, of, in digression, to, the allegations constituted, in the complaint, in complaint whereof, the complainant, has attributed an incriminatory role, of his standing beaten with a wooden stick by accused Gaurav Sood, of, rather echoings being borne therein, of, his being beaten with a wooden stick by, one Parmod Sood, (vi) the effect thereof is of the aforesaid allegation constituted, in the complaint vis-a-vis Gourav Sood, are obviously rendered incredible. Furthermore, at the time of his visiting the doctor concerned, who, subjected him to medical examination, he was enjoined, to, make a communication to him that apart from his standing belaboured by the accused, his being also belaboured by the accused, with, kicks and fist blows, qua factum report whereof, a discloser is borne in the complaint,. However, the aforesaid disclosures, are, not reflected in the apposite MLC. Thereupon, the allegations constituted, upon, the wife, son and daughter in law, of one, Parmod Sood, of, theirs belabouring the complainant, with kicks and fist blows also appear, to, per se arise from, his rearing, for settling personal scores, spite, vis-a-vis the accused besides, from his wreaking vendetta upon them, (v) especially when no injury in sequel therewith stands inflicted, upon, the person of the complainant, as divulged, by the apposite MLC. (vii) Besides the wooden stick with user whereof, by, one Gorav Sood the latter inflicted injuries upon his person, has not been recovered. (vii) Besides the wooden stick with user whereof, by, one Gorav Sood the latter inflicted injuries upon his person, has not been recovered. The effect of non effectuation of recovery of wooden stick, nor Mohan Lal insisting qua ensuring its recovery, at the instance of the accused, hence militates against the narration in the F.I.R., qua its user by accused one Gaurav Sood. Even though, it may not be appropriate, to also, discount, the vigour of the previously recorded statements in writings, of, the purported eye witnesses, as thereupon, this Court would be arrogating vis-a-vis itself, the judicial functions, of the learned trial Magistrate. Nonetheless this Court proceeds, to, evaluate their veracity(s) given ascription(s) occurring, in the petition, of all, the purported persons, who, purportedly eye witnessed, the occurrence, rearing vendetta against the accused, arising, from the factum, of, accused Parmod Sood filing eviction petition(s) against them. Even though the aforesaid factum may also not be sufficient, to dispel the vigour, of their previously rendered statements in writing, given theirs yet not rendering their testifications, before the learned trial Court, yet, (ix) evaluation thereof is important for gauging their prima facie, worth for hence erecting an inference of (x) of their rendition not surging forth ''from'' theirs rearing spite vis-a-vis the accused, merely for harassing and humiliating the accused (xi) In making hence the aforesaid firm conclusion an allusion, to, in the site plan, is appropriate. 6. In case the site plan, discloses, of theirs inhabiting premises, in, purported vicinity, of the site of occurrence, thereupon this Court would refrain to dis-impute sanctity vis-a-vis theirs previously recorded statements in writing. 7. An allusion to the site plan, however, underscores of, no depictions being borne therein of the abodes of the purported eye witnesses, to, the occurrence, hence existing in vicinity thereof. The effect thereof, is of hence the purported eye witnesses, to the occurrence, not, holding any opportunity to eye witness, the relevant occurrence. Thereupon the effect of theirs rearing a vendetta vis.a.vis the accused, sparked by the accused, instituting eviction petition(s) against them hence constraining an inference of theirs meteing a slanted and a shrouded version qua the occurrence, merely, in collusion with the complainant Mohan Lal, who also is reflected, in the petition to be entangled, in a litigation with the accused Pramod Sood AND who likewise is actuated by malice, to, impute allegations against the accord. Corollary whereof is, of, satiation being begotten, of the principles governing the apposite jurisdictional leverage, vested, in this Court, by the provisions, of, Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 principles whereof ARE comprised in (i) the allegation being proven to arise from spite or from vendetta (ii) thereupon, when readings of evidence aggravates, an inference of, it being hence contrived, thereupon, this Court being empowered to quash proceedings. 8. Be that as it may, even though, there is a narration, in, the complaint ''of'' one Rupali Sood, daughter of one of the accused, clicking photographs and making videography of the occurrence, yet the aforesaid photographs, if any clicked or the vidography, if any, done by one Rupali Sood, enjoined effectuation(s) of recovery, by the Investigating Officer. However, it remained un-recovered, whereas, it, constituted the best evidence qua the relevant factum probandum, effect whereof, is, of an inference being aroused of despite it rather holding the truth of the occurrence (i) omissions ''of'' its recovery, being engendered, for suppressing truth thereof. Since the substantial portion of the allegation (s) contained in the complaint, are built upon prima facie infirm evidence, thereupon the factum, of, accused Promod Sood hurling invectives upon the complainant, is also unbelievable. 9. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the accused before the learned trial Court are quashed and set-aside. Petition allowed.