ORDER : Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR registered as Crime No. 410/2016 under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Amarpatan, Distt. Satna (M.P.). 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that respondent No. 2-Smt. Sunita Patel lodged a report on 14/11/2016 in the morning at 5.10 a.m. against applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel at Police Station, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna alleging therein that applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel in the last night abusing her and today in the morning again started abusing her and by showing country made pistol threatening her to kill. S.H.O. Vijay Singh Thakur, after receiving this information, informed to his senior officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Police) on telephone, but, could not get the search warrant. However, considering urgency of the matter, rushed to the spot along with other Police staff and in the presence of applicant No. 1 - Narendra Patel made a search. One pistol loaded with three live cartridges was found on the bed of applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel. On asking by SHO about license of the pistol, applicant No. 1 replied that he is not having any license of that country made pistol and he received that pistol from his friend i.e. applicant No. 2-Jitendra Prasad Soni. 3. After completing all formalities, SHO went to the house of applicant No. 2-Jitendra Soni and asked about that pistol that how he received that pistol. Applicant No. 2-Jitendra Soni stated that applicant No. 1 -Narendra Patel told him that he is having a family dispute with neighbour i.e. complainant, then he provided pistol and live cartridge to applicant No. 1. S.H.O. after coming back to the Police Station, registered Crime No. 410/2016 against both the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 25 read with Section 27 of Arms Act. 4. The applicants have filed this petition for quashing the registration of FIR on the ground that both the applicants are correspondents of news channels. SHO Vijay Singh Thakur misused his post and promoted corrupt practices that was published by both the applicants and for taking revenge, SHO Vijay Singh Thakur by using respondent No. 2 as a tool registered false case against both the applicants, beat them in Police Station. SHO Vijay Singh Thakur misused his post and promoted corrupt practices that was published by both the applicants and for taking revenge, SHO Vijay Singh Thakur by using respondent No. 2 as a tool registered false case against both the applicants, beat them in Police Station. Thereafter both the applicants immediately complained this matter to the senior Police Officers who came at Police Station and at the instance of applicants Crime No. 411/2016 registered against SHO and released both the applicants. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that it is a matter where misuse of power and law is reflected. The matter was investigated by the superior Police Officers and found that no case is made out against both the applicants and a case registered against SHO Vijay Singh Thakur at Crime No. 411/2016. In these premises, learned senior counsel for the applicants prays to quash FIR registered at Crime No. 410/2016 against both the applicants. 5. Learned senior counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 , M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 SC 128 , State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1982 SC 949 . 6. On the other hand, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 1/State, submits that sufficient material is available against the applicants. This petition has been filed on the wrong grounds, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary of Crime No. 410/2016 and 411/2016, both registered at Police Station, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna. 8. No doubt, respondent No. 2-Smt. Sunita Patel informed SHO Vijay Singh Thakur that applicant No. 1- Narendra Patel who is neighbour of her, abusing her on account of some passage dispute and by showing pistol threatened her to kill her. Satna. 8. No doubt, respondent No. 2-Smt. Sunita Patel informed SHO Vijay Singh Thakur that applicant No. 1- Narendra Patel who is neighbour of her, abusing her on account of some passage dispute and by showing pistol threatened her to kill her. After receiving the information, SHO Vijay Singh Thakur recorded the same in the Roznamcha Sanha and rushed to spot along with other Police personnel i.e. Jaiprakash, Chandra Prakash, Ajit Verma and found a pistol loaded with live cartridge on the bed of applicant No. 1, seized that pistol in the possessions of applicant No. 1. Spot map prepared and on the information provided by applicant No. 1 -Narendra Patel, went to inquire from applicant No. 2 and found a cognizable offence, thereafter registered FIR and arrested both the applicants. 9. Perused the case diary of Crime No. 411/ 2016 registered at Police Station, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna. On the basis of information provided by applicant No. 1 -Narendra Patel to ASI L.P. Verma, FIR registered against Vijay Singh Thakur and Nirmal Singh Munshi. Applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel made a written report to Sub Divisional Office (Police) alleging therein that he is correspondent of media news channel and disclosed the corruption of SHO of Police Station Amarpatan Vijay Singh Thakur and Vijay Singh Thakur threatened that he would lodge a report against him and sent him to jail and also stated the fact that Vijay Singh Thakur, T.I. came at his home. He invited him inside home and offered tea but Vijay Singh Thakur committed Marpeet, abused him and forcefully took him at Police Station. 10. After perusal of both FIRs registered at Crime No. 410/2016 and 411/2016, this fact is reflected that Inspector Vijay Kumar Thakur after receiving the information from complainant/respondent No. 2-Smt. Sunita Patel went to the house of applicant No. 1- Narendra Patel and introduced himself. Applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel permitted him to get entered inside the house and there he found country made pistol. When all the formalities had been done by the Inspector- Vijay Singh Thakur, then lodged FIR and it is reflected that on the counter blast, applicant No. 1 posing himself as a correspondent of Media News Channel, submitted a written report to the Superior Officer of Police against Inspector Vijay Singh Thakur and other Police personnel who came along with Vijay Singh Thakur. 11. 11. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that Inspector Vijay Singh Thakur by misusing the power registered false case against the applicants. However, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submits that both the applicants by misusing the power of newspaper channel correspondent lodged a written report to the Superior Officer of Police against Police Officers and personnel who were posted at Police Station, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) (supra) has culled out some important points for quashing of the FIR or complaint, as under:- "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 power should be exercise. 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. 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. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 on 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." 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj ( AIR 1996 SC 309 ) (supra) in para 3-4 has held as under: "3-4 On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the following reasons weighed with the High Court in quashing the FIR: (i) the allegations made therein do not disclosed any cognizable offence; (ii) the nature of harm allegedly caused to Mrs. Bajaj did not entitle her to complain about the same in view of Section 95, IPC; (iii) the allegations are unnatural and improbable; (iv) the Investigating Officer did not apply his mind to the allegations made in the FIR, for had he done so, he would have found that there was no reason to suspect commission of a cognizable offence, which was the 'sine qua non' for starting an investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C.; and (v) there was unreasonable and unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR." 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another ( AIR 1998 SC 128 ) (supra) has held as under: "It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory, If in a case the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court can certainly treat the petition one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not, however, be lost sight of that provision exists in the Court of revision and appeal but sometime for immediate relief section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the Sub-ordinate Court. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Article 226 and 227 could well be treated. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegation made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge whom to the accused. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial." 15. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Guha ( AIR 1982 SC 949 )(supra) has held as under: "A first Information Report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. An investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R. It is surely not within he province of the Police to investigate into a report (F.I.R.) which dies not disclose the commission of an cognizable offence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases." 16. This Court thinks that who is misusing the power is to be decided after completion of investigation or during trial. At this stage, this Court would not go into the merit that who is misusing the power. 17. Now perused the evidence collected during investigation in Crime No. 410/2016 registered under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 120-B of IPC. Perused the letter dated 29/09/2019 written by SHO, Police Station, Amarpatan. After perusal of the said letter, it is reflected that investigation has been completed. Charge sheet is to be filed before the trial Court, but, both the applicants are not appearing before the trial Court and remained absconded. 18. Perused the other evidence collected during investigation. Amritlal Patel also lodged written report dated 13/11/2016 to SHO, Police Station, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna alleging the offence committed by applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel. Police recorded the statement of Smt. Sunita Patel and prepared seizure memo. No doubt, prima facie, it reflects that 32 bore pistol seized from the possession of applicant No. 1-Narendra Patel along with three live cartridge. There is prima facie strong case found against applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 1 received this pistol from his friend applicant No. 2-Jitendra Prasad Soni and on the basis of that statement, applicant No. 2- Jitendra Prasad Soni has been inducted as an accused in this case. Except this fact, no other evidence is available against applicant No. 2-Jitendra Prasad Soni. To prosecute applicant No. 1, District Magistrate, Satna provided permission for prosecution. The case of both the applicants does not fall in any category as discussed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the above case-laws cited by learned senior counsel for the applicants. 19. Except this fact, no other evidence is available against applicant No. 2-Jitendra Prasad Soni. To prosecute applicant No. 1, District Magistrate, Satna provided permission for prosecution. The case of both the applicants does not fall in any category as discussed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the above case-laws cited by learned senior counsel for the applicants. 19. There is sufficient evidence available against applicant No. 1, hence no need to quash the FIR against applicant No. 1. So far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, he has been implicated as an accused on the ground that previously he was having possession of 32 bore pistol and provided it to applicant No. 1. After investigation, charge sheet has been prepared. Applicant No. 2 can very well argue this matter before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. This Court is not inclined to discuss that fact on merit at this stage. 20. In view of aforementioned discussions, this petition sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 21. Interlocutory application, if any, is pending, the same stands dismissed.