JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, in case No.143 of 2021, titled as State Versus Gulab Chand and Another, arising out of FIR No.28/2021, dated 22.03.2021, under Sections 307, 382, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the above mentioned FIR was registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., on 22.03.2021. As per the petitioner, she as well as one Shri Gulab Chand were arrayed as accused in the matter. After the investigation was completed by the police, challan was presented in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the petitioner, she has been wrongly involved in the matter and accordingly, this petition has been filed, praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings as well as the FIR, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations which stand levelled against the petitioner are vague and baseless and they do not constitute any offence and further the petitioner being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was a public representative and initiating vague proceedings against her also amounts to loss to the public trust. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been roped as an accused just to harass her as she happened to be an elected public representative of the Panchayat concerned. He has submitted that scrutiny of the documents submitted by police under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code would demonstrate that no case is in fact made out against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has with vehemence argued that the only eyewitness to the occurrence, Smt. Bhagmali i.e. the victim, in her statement which was recorded at I.G.M.C. Shimla, H.P. in the presence of a doctor, on 03.04.2021, on which date this witness was duly certified to be fit enough to give a statement, had nowhere named the petitioner as an accused, but it was in her second statement recorded on 08.04.2021 that the petitioner was also named as an accused by the victim. He submitted that when on 03.04.2021, the victim was fit enough to make a statement, then the subsequent statement of the victim recorded on 08.04.2021, cannot be taken into consideration and the subsequent improvement which has been made by the victim cannot be used to falsely implicate the petitioner in the crime. Learned Senior Counsel has thus submitted that on this count alone, this petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR in issue qua the petitioner needs to be quashed and set aside. He has also argued that the victim has an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and the motive being that the daughter of the victim had contested and lost the elections of Pradhan against the petitioner and this entire exercise of falsely implicating the petitioner stood undertaken by respondent No.2 to tarnish the image of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied upon the documents appended with the petition and on the strength of contents thereof, he has argued that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and accordingly, a prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent/State as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the present proceedings are misconceived and is an attempt to thwart the criminal process which stands initiated against the petitioner and another. According to the respondents, no case is made out for either quashing of the FIR or ensuing criminal proceedings and the filing of this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. I will first deal with the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, from which the scope of indulgence by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a case where quashing of a FIR is sought by a party, stands culled out. 7. 6. I will first deal with the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, from which the scope of indulgence by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a case where quashing of a FIR is sought by a party, stands culled out. 7. In State of Haryana and Others Versus Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (I), Supreme Court Cases 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to cull down the following kind of cases, which list even as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not exhaustive, wherein power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised for the purpose of quashing of the FIR:“ (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) where the allegations in the FIR 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 FIR 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 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.” These principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India time and again and stand followed by the High Courts in the matters pertaining to quashing of FIRs in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate and accused can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceedings quashed against him when the complaint does not makes out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. 9. In Minu Kumari and Another Versus State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 359, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and the High Court being the highest Court of the State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy and more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. 10. In Fakhruddin Ahmad Versus State of Uttranchal and Another, (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157, Hon’ble Supreme of India held that the inherent powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised very carefully and with great caution so that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled. It also held that nevertheless, where the High Court is convinced that 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 or where the allegations made in the FIR or the 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, the powers of the High Court under said provision should be exercised. While reiterating these principles, Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). 11. While reiterating these principles, Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). 11. Thereafter, in Rajiv Thapar and Others Versus Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings invoking the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code: “(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?” 12. In Kaptan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 35, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: “9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the chargesheet before the Learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/Complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the chargesheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (Supra) in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. It is further observed and held that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the chargesheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. 9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove. 9.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 13. In State of Telangana Versus Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Others, (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 779, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:“ 23. We have referred to the authority in Hema Mishra (supra) as that specifically deals with the case that came from the State of Uttar Pradesh where Section 438 CrPC has been deleted. It has concurred with the view expressed in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra). The said decision, needless to say, has to be read in the context of State of Uttar Pradesh. We do not intend to elaborate the said principle as that is not necessary in this case. What needs to be stated here is that the States where Section 438 CrPC has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint. What needs to be stated here is that the States where Section 438 CrPC has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint. We may hasten to clarify that the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly. It has no sanction in law. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay.” 14. In Chirag M. Pathak and Others Versus Dollyben Kantilal Patel, and others, (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 330, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: “24) In our considered opinion, it is only when on reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case and also disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second FIR. Such is not the case here. 15. In Rajeev Kourav Versus Baisahab and Others, (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 317, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: “8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.” 16. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 , Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:::: “10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where noninterference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 17. Now, in the backdrop of the law which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the light of factual matrix involved in the present case, this Court is of the view that this petition cannot be allowed. In this case, it cannot be said that the allegations which have been made against the petitioner 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 petitioner. 18. The effect of the two statements of the complainant having been recorded in the hospital, has to be gone into by the learned Trial Court in case the trial takes place and it is not for this Court to form any opinion at this stage on this aspect of the matter and quash the FIR as also the ensuing criminal proceedings. The veracity of the statements is to be tested at the time of trial and not at this stage. The other allegations of the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in the matter on account of political rivalry etc. are also points which need to be established in the course of trial by the defence. The veracity of the statements is to be tested at the time of trial and not at this stage. The other allegations of the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in the matter on account of political rivalry etc. are also points which need to be established in the course of trial by the defence. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that as the petitioner is an accused, the onus to prove its case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the petitioner enjoys the benefit of being presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise. The import of the investigation report as also the effect of the findings returned therein has to be tested by the learned Trial Court and this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot substitute itself for the Trial Court to assess the merits and demerits of the case of the prosecution. This of course is not the scope of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 19. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the inherent powers so possessed by the High Court are to be exercised only if the allegations, on the very face value if accepted, do not constitutes any prima facie case and further allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. These conditions, in the considered view of this Court do not exist in the present case in view of the facts involved therein. The allegations against the present petitioner alongwith other accused are of attempt to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence etc., which indeed are serious allegations. 20. Therefore, as the present case does not passes the touch stone of the principles which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the application of which this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings, this petition is accordingly dismissed. 20. Therefore, as the present case does not passes the touch stone of the principles which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the application of which this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings, this petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations which have been made by this Court in this judgment are only for the purpose of the adjudication of the present petition and the learned Court below shall not be prejudiced by any manner by any observation contained therein while adjudicating the matter before it. 21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.