JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code") has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2017 as well as summoning order dated 29.07.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.2721 of 2017, State vs. Mradul Tripathi and others, under Sections 147, 353 and 332 IPC by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case"). 2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. An FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2, Virendra Ramola, Senior Sub-Inspector Police (for short, “the informant") on 19.07.2017 under Sections 147, 353, 332 IPC against the petitioners and others. According to the FIR, on that day, the informant had gone to assist the Encroachment Removal Drive. At 04:00 PM, on that day, when encroachment done by one Khempal was being removed, the petitioners obstructed the police personnel from discharging their official duties. In the scuffle, which ensued the informant and others were also assaulted, due to which, the informant also sustained nail scratches. The informant got himself medically examined. This FIR was investigated and after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. It is this charge-sheet, in which, on 29.07.2017, cognizance has been taken. These proceedings are impugned in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner no.1 was an Ex-Gram Pradhan and an activist. He was called at the spot by the public. He only represented the public and did not commit any offence. Therefore, it is submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners. 5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction is too wide to make such orders as may be such order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to seek an ample justice. The jurisdiction has been much guided by the principles laid down in various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position has been summarized in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006)6 SCC 736 . In para 12 of it, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:- “12. The jurisdiction has been much guided by the principles laid down in various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position has been summarized in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006)6 SCC 736 . In para 12 of it, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:- “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 Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. 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. 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 mala fides/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. 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 proceeding 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." 6. What is being argued in the instant case is that the petitioners did not commit any offence. The FIR categorically states that the police personnel were obstructed in discharge of their duties by the petitioners and others. There are allegations of assault, as well. It is the case in the FIR that the informant did sustain injuries. What is being argued in the instant case is that the petitioners did not commit any offence. The FIR categorically states that the police personnel were obstructed in discharge of their duties by the petitioners and others. There are allegations of assault, as well. It is the case in the FIR that the informant did sustain injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and it is based on the statements of the witnesses and the medical report, etc. The truthfulness, credibility and reliability of the evidence cannot be examined at this stage. A mini trial cannot be conducted. It is settled law that at the threshold a legitimate trial should not be stopped. In the instant case, the FIR disclosed the commission of the offence and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case which may warrant any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine.