JUDGMENT : V.G. BISHT, J. 1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), seeking to quash the proceedings in First Information Report No. 022/2020 (for short, “FIR”) dated 19th February, 2020 of Police Station Rajgad, District Pune Gramin. 2. The relevant facts and allegations as narrated in the FIR may be noticed. 3. On 19th January, 2020 at about 6.15 p.m., PSI Samir Vilas Kadam, informant, Rajgad Police Station, Pune, along with ASI N.S.Yemul was managing the traffic of Lane No. 11 on Pune -Satara Highway Road of Khed Shivapur Toll Naka. An employee of the said toll naka of Lane No.20, namely, Amol Dnyaneshwar Konde approached them and complained that a vehicle owner is unnecessarily creating ruckus. Therefore, the informant along with the said ASI Yemul went there and spotted a person in the car was arguing with the employees of booth. They persuaded him and then that vehicle went away. 4. The prosecution then contends that a Scorpio vehicle No. MH 12 CP 10 which was following the said vehicle came and the driver started shouting at informant and said Yemul and asked them as to what they were doing as there was a heavy traffic. While ASI Yemul was pacifying him, he noticed a bottle of beer in the vehicle and therefore they asked him to take the vehicle aside. The prosecution alleges that the driver of the said vehicle initially took the vehicle at informant slowly and then tried to mow him down by zooming the vehicle in his direction. The informant immediately removed himself from the direction of the said vehicle and from the driver side window inserted his hand to restrain the said driver but the said driver raised the speed of the vehicle, dragged the informant for about 15 meter before pushing him down and then drive away. According to prosecution as the informant had fallen down, he sustained various injuries on his person. 5. Lastly, the employees of the toll naka who chased the vehicle of the said driver and caught-hold of him. His name was then revealed as Dnyaneshwar Arjun Suryawanshi i.e. the present petitioner. According to prosecution as the informant had fallen down, he sustained various injuries on his person. 5. Lastly, the employees of the toll naka who chased the vehicle of the said driver and caught-hold of him. His name was then revealed as Dnyaneshwar Arjun Suryawanshi i.e. the present petitioner. The informant accordingly lodged the report against the petitioner on the basis of which FIR No. 022/2020 under Sections 307, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 6. Mr. Ranade, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations made in the FIR are baseless inasmuch the petitioner was driving his vehicle and the respondent-informant without any sufficient cause attacked the petitioner and started harassing and torturing him. There is absolutely no prima facie evidence to show the involvement of the present petitioner and a false complaint is filed by the respondents in collusion with each other. 7. Per contra Mr.Shaikh, learned APP, invited our attention to the contents of the FIR and forcefully submitted that at the stage of quashing of FIR what is required to be seen is whether bare reading of the contents of FIR made out the offence against the accused or not. According to learned APP there are prima facie ingredients of alleged offences and in such circumstances, it would be just and proper not to entertain the present Petition and the same be rejected outrightly. 8. The principles governing the quashing of criminal cases are well settled. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations at paragraph 12 : “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations at paragraph 12 : “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few – Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandorjirao Angre [(1988) (1) SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (1992 SCC (Cri) 426); , Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (( 1995 6 SCC 194 ); Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. ( (1996) 5 SCC 591 ); State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla ( (1996) 8 SCC 164 ); Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, ( (1999) 3 SCC 259 ); Medchl Chemical & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.( (2000) 3 SCC 269 ); Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar ( (2000) 4 SCC 168 ); M. Krishnan vs Vijay Singh ( (2001) 8 SCC 645 ) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd,. Sharaful Haque ( (2005) 1 SCC 122 ). The principles, relevant to our purpose are : (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 9. The legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as noticed above are well established. The power should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection as per the tests laid down in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It would be thus expedient to examine the allegations made in the complaint. 10. We have already quoted the incident reflecting through the FIR in extenso. Prima facie reading of the complaint would indicate that not only the accused tried to take his vehicle over the body of informant with ulterior motive but when the informant tried to restrain him from doing so, he was dragged by the petitioner upto a distance of about 15 meter and ultimately pushed him away. It further appears that as a result thereof the informant fell on the road and sustained various injuries on his person leading to his hospitalization. 11. Reading of the aforesaid allegations in the complaint, prima facie disclosed commission of criminal offences by the petitioner as has been claimed by the respondent No.1. It further appears that as a result thereof the informant fell on the road and sustained various injuries on his person leading to his hospitalization. 11. Reading of the aforesaid allegations in the complaint, prima facie disclosed commission of criminal offences by the petitioner as has been claimed by the respondent No.1. They i.e., petitioner and respondent No.1 are required to prove and substantiate their respective versions by adducing evidence in support thereof. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there are prima facie materials available to continue the investigation against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code and we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage. 13. In view of the above, it is concluded that there is no case for quashing of FIR is made out. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.