ORDER : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of summoning order, dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in challan filed by the police in case FIR No. 135 of 2016, dated 12.04.2016, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. 2. For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that private respondent No. 4, Praveen Kumari filed a written complaint before learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., which was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Mandi through letter No. DJ-R(Per)/MND2016-2646, dated 4th May, 2016 for taking appropriate necessary action as per law. Police after having received aforesaid complaint, lodged FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.5.2016, under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 reveals that during investigation in the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, allegation with regard to "criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty", as levelled in the FIR was not found to be correct and accordingly, investigating officer deleted Section 354 of IPC while submitting charge sheet before the competent court of law. After completion of the investigation, police presented charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for having committed offence under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 4, Mandi, H.P. 4. Learned court below taking cognizance of challan filed by the police, issued summons, returnable for 27.6.2017, directing therein petitioner to remain present on the given date (Annexure P-8). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as summoning order on the ground that bare reading of FIR as well as challan filed in the competent court of law, nowhere discloses offences, if any, against the petitioner much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as summoning order on the ground that bare reading of FIR as well as challan filed in the competent court of law, nowhere discloses offences, if any, against the petitioner much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. Careful perusal of reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 reveals that petitioner had some boundary dispute with respondent No. 4, who was working as Nazir in District Court Mandi, H.P. Since private respondent No. 4 and her family had encroached upon the Government land, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner's family and mother of private respondent No. 4 had got prepared false, fake and forged tatima, petitioner filed a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, alleging therein that mother of private respondent No. 4 has prepared false, fake and forged tatima of the Government land, resultantly, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the police (Annexure P-1). Police took cognizance on aforesaid complaint and after investigation arrived at a conclusion that mother of private respondent No. 4 has committed offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC and accordingly registered FIR No. 28 of 2015 against the mother of private respondent No. 4. Mother of private respondent No. 4, Smt. Kaushalya Devi also filed Civil Suit No. 18 of 2012 for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi, H.P. (Annexure P-3) against the petitioner. 6. Reply of respondent No. 1 to 3 reveals that private respondent No. 4 in the year 2013 committed offence under Sections 447, 504, 506, 34 of IPC alongwith other three persons against the petitioner and his family by raising unnecessary dispute on the boundary of the petitioner and his family and matter was reported to the police and in that regard, FIR No. 19/2013, dated 28.01.2013 was registered with police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., at the behest of the petitioner (Annexure P-4). 7. It is quite apparent from the reading of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 that there are number of Civil and Criminal cases pending adjudication inter se petitioner and family of respondent No. 4. 7. It is quite apparent from the reading of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 that there are number of Civil and Criminal cases pending adjudication inter se petitioner and family of respondent No. 4. On account of pendency of aforesaid litigation relationship inter se petitioner and respondent No. 4 are not good. In the year, 2016 allegedly private respondent No. 4, who was working as Nazir in the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., was interfering in the proceedings of all these cases pending in the competent court of law. Petitioner as well his family members submitted a complaint to learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi with a copy of the same to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court with a prayer that respondent be restrained from interfering in the cases pending adjudication before the different courts at Mandi. Besides above, petitioner also prayed that private respondent may be transferred from District Court Complex Mandi in the interest of justice. Copy of complaint dated 24.04.2016 is annexed as Annexure P-5. 8. In counter blast to aforesaid complaint filed by the petitioner and his family members, private respondent lodged a complaint with learned District and Sessions, Mandi, alleging therein that she is working as Nazir in the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi and the family of the petitioner and private respondent were having boundary dispute. She alleged that on 12.05.2016 while she was coming to her office, petitioner not only stopped her but abused her publically and also made caste based remarks. She alleged that petitioner threatened her to get her terminated from her job. She alleged that on the same day petitioner again came to her office and remained sitting in the office upto 5:00 PM and when she was going to home, petitioner followed and besides abusing also threatened her with dire consequences. Learned District and Sessions, Judge, Mandi forwarded the aforesaid complaint to police with the endorsement to take action against the petitioner. While forwarding complaint of respondent No. 4 to the police, learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi ordered that whatever action taken pursuant to complaint of respondent No. 4 be intimated in the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police without investigation straightaway lodged the FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-6). 9. While forwarding complaint of respondent No. 4 to the police, learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi ordered that whatever action taken pursuant to complaint of respondent No. 4 be intimated in the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police without investigation straightaway lodged the FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-6). 9. During investigation since police found no offence to have been committed under Section 354 of IPC, it deleted Section 354 from the FIR and thereafter presented the challan in the competent Court of law under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC (Annexure P-7). Record reveals that learned Court below taking cognizance of aforesaid challan straightaway recorded the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses adduced on record in support of the complaint and issued summoning order to petitioner, returnable for 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-8). 10. Since learned trial Court before issuing summons for 27.6.2017 (Annexure P-8) failed to pass order citing therein reasons for summoning the petitioner in FIR No. 135 of 2016 lodged at the behest of the complainant coupled with the fact that FIR, as mentioned hereinabove, does not disclose offence, if any, much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR. 11. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 12. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of learned counsel representing the parties, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. 13. In case titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 14. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 , held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. Besides above, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled as Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330 , paras 29-30) 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal -proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 16. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time that 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/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings. 17. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making this Court to peruse the documents placed on record alongwith the writ petition, vehemently argued that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted under the directions of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, who otherwise had no role, whatsoever to issue directions to police to register FIR against the petitioner, especially when no legal proceedings, if any, were initiated before him by the complainant. Mr. Chaudhary, argued that private complainant after having heard of filing of complaint against her by petitioner to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi lodged false complaint to learned District and Sessions, Mandi, alleging therein that she was prevented by the petitioner from coming to the office and he had used filthy language against her. But learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi without making an enquiry, if any, into the allegation straightaway forwarded the complaint to police for taking appropriate action. Mr. But learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi without making an enquiry, if any, into the allegation straightaway forwarded the complaint to police for taking appropriate action. Mr. Chaudhary, argued that complainant aggrieved, if any, of illegal action of the petitioner could always file FIR straightaway in the police Station, who further after having investigated the matter either would have lodged the FIR or rejected the complaint, but since in the case at hand, specific direction came to be issued from the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, police without verifying the correctness of the allegation levelled in the complaint by the private respondent, proceeded to lodge FIR. While referring to FIR as well as final challan filed in the competent court of law (Annexures P-6 & P-7), Mr. Chaudhary strenuously argued that no case much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, is made out against the petitioner and as such, FIR as well as summoning order issued by the court below deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 18. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while supporting the summoning order issued by the court below, contended that since court after having recorded the statement of the complainant as well as evidence adduced on record in support of complaint had arrived at a prima-facie conclusion that petitioner has committed offence under sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, there was no occasion for it to pass order citing therein reason for summoning petitioner before issuance of summon order, dated 24.4.2017, calling upon the petitioner to remain present on 27.6.2017. However, learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 fairly admitted that there are numbers of litigation i.e. criminal and civil pending inter se petitioner and family of respondent No. 4. 19. Before adverting to aforesaid submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be apt to take note of order dated 12.12.2017, passed by this Court, perusal whereof reveals that this Court having perused the record found that dispute inter se petitioner and respondent No. 4 was on account of land and since private respondent had encroached upon the private land, this Bench passed following order:- "On 31.10.2017, this Court had directed the State to ascertain the status of the property in dispute. Today, the learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record a communication received by him from the District Collector, Mandi, dated 08.12.2017, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "Kindly refer your office letter No. Cr. MMO 259/2017 dated 04.12.2017, on the subjected cited above. The matter was got inquired into through the Tehsildar, Sadar who has reported that the land comprising Khasra No. 1657 area measuring 5634-75 Sq. Mtrs. classified as "Khadetar" is recorded in the ownership of State of H.P. and in the possession column Raja Joginder Sen son of Shri Kishan Singh son of Shri Man Singh local resident is recorded "Bila Sift" as per jamabandi for the year 2009-10 in Muhal Mangwain/366/8 Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. As per the spot verification done by the field revenue agency it is found that some portion of the above land is lying vacant whereas in some portion there are buildings constructed on spot. Copy of spot map and Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 muhal Mangwain Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, report of Tehsildar, Sadar are enclosed herewith for further necessary action as desired please." At this stage, Shri R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a copy of the ejectment order passed against Lal Chand son of Shri Rakha Ram, who is none-else than the father of respondent No. 4. It is not only surprising but rather shocking that this fact has not at all been mentioned by the Collector in his aforesaid report. The least that was expected of the Collector was to have brought before this Court the true and correct position as is existing on the spot including the cases of eviction that are sub-judice or have attained finality. In the given circumstances, let Collector, Mandi, file a detailed report on his personal affidavit before the next date of hearing. The learned counsel for the parties jointly pray for and are granted two weeks' time to place on record additional documents. List on 02.01.2018". 20. Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Court District Collector, Mandi filed affidavit, indicating therein that ejectment orders stood passed against predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4 on 9.12.2014. Since, affidavit was conspicuously silent as to where such matter is subjudice, this Court directed District Collector, Mandi to file his personal affidavit, detailing therein batter particulars. List on 02.01.2018". 20. Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Court District Collector, Mandi filed affidavit, indicating therein that ejectment orders stood passed against predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4 on 9.12.2014. Since, affidavit was conspicuously silent as to where such matter is subjudice, this Court directed District Collector, Mandi to file his personal affidavit, detailing therein batter particulars. On 13.3.2018, District Collector, Mandi filed his personal affidavit, wherein he stated that there were 35 cases of encroachment in Muhal Mangwain, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., which have been decided by Assistant Collector Mandi by passing ejectment order. He also disclosed that person namely, Lal Chand had filed suit for declaration and injunction, wherein learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No. 4, Mandi passed status quo order qua nature and possession of the suit land. 21. Since, relief claimed in the suit was for decree of declaration on the ground that plaintiff has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession, this Court observed in order dated 13.3.2018 that suit is not at all maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurudwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and others (2014)1 SCC 679 and accordingly directed learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No. 4, Mandi to first decide the maintainability of the suit in the light of aforesaid judgment. 22. Having scanned the entire material placed on record by respective parties as well as order dated 13.3.2018 and 12.12.2017, passed by this Court, one thing is ample clear that dispute inter se petitioner and respondent No. 4 was on account of boundary dispute. It also emerge from the record that respondent No. 4 alongwith many other persons encroached upon the government land and as such, pursuant to directions issued by this Court many cases of encroachment came to be instituted against various persons including private respondent No. 4 and proceedings in that regard are pending adjudication before one forum or other. 23. Precise case of the petitioner is that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is a counter blast to the complaints filed by the petitioner against family of respondent No. 4 qua encroachment made by them on the Government land and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 23. Precise case of the petitioner is that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is a counter blast to the complaints filed by the petitioner against family of respondent No. 4 qua encroachment made by them on the Government land and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It is not in dispute that FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted after filing of written complaint Annexure P-5 by petitioner to learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, wherein he alleged that private respondent No. 4 being Nazir in the court learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi is unnecessarily interfering in many cases pending inter se him and respondent No. 4 in the various court of law at Mandi. Moreover, if contents of FIR sought to be quashed are perused in its entirety though reveals that on 30.4.2016 petitioner restrained private respondent No. 4 from coming to her office and abused her publically, but if the final challan filed by police after investigation is perused, no evidence, worth credence, ever came to be fore, enabling investigating agency to frame petitioner under various provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. Similarly, final challan (Annexure P-5) clearly reveals that person namely, Sonika wife of Sh. Inder Singh is the sole witness to the alleged incident, but there is no material available on record suggestive of the fact that at the time of alleged incident above named Sonika wife of Inder Singh was present on the Spot, rather allegedly such incident happened while private respondent No. 4 was coming to her office. She alleged that petitioner abused her and used casteist remarks in open public place. Perusal of challan suggests that no independent witness came forward to support aforesaid allegation of private respondent No. 4. Though, police in final challan filed under Section 173 categorically stated that since number of cases are pending inter se private respondent No. 4 and petitioner, private respondent No. 4 has narrated alleged incident in exaggerated manner and no witness from court complex and Ramnagar qua the alleged incident was found, but yet it proceeded to present challan against accused under Section 341, 504 and 506 IPC. 24. Having carefully perused the contents of the FIR, sought to be quashed vis-à-vis final challan filed by the police in the competent court of law, this court is compelled to agree with Mr. 24. Having carefully perused the contents of the FIR, sought to be quashed vis-à-vis final challan filed by the police in the competent court of law, this court is compelled to agree with Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner that FIR sought to be quashed is not only counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner against family respondent no. 4, but same is result of uncalled for sympathy shown by the then learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, who without verifying the contents of the complaint, directed police to lodge complaint with further direction to report the matter back to him. 25. Leaving everything aside, Judicial Magistrate without bothering to look into contents of challan proceeded to issue summons to accused. No doubt, record reveals that learned Judicial Magistrate before issuing notice recorded the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses adduced in support of complaint, but yet before issuing summons, he/she ought to have passed order, detailing therein reasons for summoning the accused. Since, such orders never came to be passed, it prevented petitioner herein to lay challenge to such order in the competent court of law, if he was so aggrieved. Since, trial Court straightaway summoned the petitioner without passing any summoning order, it has resulted into grate miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, who in the event of having received summoning order would have got an opportunity to approach appropriate court of law. 26. After having perused contents of FIR sought to be quashed as well as challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that court below mechanically without bothering to look into the correctness and genuineness of the contents of FIR as well as final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., proceeded to issue summon, causing great prejudice to the petitioner. 27. Bare reading of FIR as well as final challan filed under Section 173, nowhere discloses offences, if any, much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as summoning order issued by Court below are allowed to sustain. Bare reading of FIR as well as final challan filed under Section 173, nowhere discloses offences, if any, much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as summoning order issued by Court below are allowed to sustain. Since it stands duly recorded in the challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that nothing was found against the petitioner during investigation and no independent witness is available qua the alleged incident occurred near the Court complex or Ram Nagar chances of conviction of petitioner otherwise are very remote and bleak and as such, continuation of proceedings, if any, pursuant to filing of challan in the competent court of law and summoning orders would result in sheer abuse of process of law. 28. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, the preset petition is allowed and FIR No. 135 of 2016, dated 12.4.2016, under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as summoning order dated 24.4.2017, are quashed and set-aside. Needless to say, action taken by the competent authority of law pursuant to interim orders 13.3.2018 and 12.12.2017, passed by this Court shall be taken to its logical end. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.