ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents and Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s): “a) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed the FIR of crime no.0183/2021 registered at Police Station Mungeli, District – Mungeli for an offence under section 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC. b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is stated in the petition by the petitioners that on 21.3.2021 at around 7 pm when petitioner No.2 Harsh Kumar, aged about 14 years, was sitting in the playground, at that time respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal came there and saying that petitioner No.2 abuses him behind his back, started abusing him filthily, threatened him of life and assaulted him with Kada Chuda (a bangle shaped article made of iron) on his forehead and head as a result of which petitioner No.2 suffered injuries. On report being lodged by him on the same day i.e. 21.3.2021 at 20:10 hours, offences under Sections 294, 323 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered against respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal. However, after a lapse of 10 days, respondent No.3 also lodged a report against the petitioners herein in connection with the said incident, on which offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC were registered against them. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.183/2021 registered against the petitioners is totally false and frivolous. A bare reading of contents of the said FIR, it is crystal clear that the basic ingredients for attracting the offence under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC are extremely missing in it. It has been lodged just as a counter blast of the FIR lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.3 to create pressure on the petitioners. Offence under Section 294 of IPC is a cognizable offence whereas offence under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are non-cognizable offences. It has been lodged just as a counter blast of the FIR lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.3 to create pressure on the petitioners. Offence under Section 294 of IPC is a cognizable offence whereas offence under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are non-cognizable offences. However, there is nothing in the FIR to show commission of offence under Section 294 of IPC, even then the same was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have also made a complaint in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli on 17.5.2021 but of no avail. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per the impugned FIR, both the petitioners assaulted respondent No.3 on 21.3.2021 whereas petitioner No.1 at the relevant time was at home as he was suffering from typhoid and chronic fever since 18.3.2021 and was not in a positive to move. He was continuously taking medical treatment up to 23.3.2021. In support of above contention, medical documents of petitioner No.1 have been annexed herewith as Annexure P/3. In these circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that true it is that the impugned FIR was lodged after 10 days of the incident, however, merely on that ground, the same cannot be quashed. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are false or not, is to be decided during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be proper to quash the impugned FIR. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and contended that due to assault made by the petitioners on respondent No.3 in the said incident, he suffered injury on his ear. The petition filed by the petitioners is without any substance and therefore, the same may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . The Court has held thus: “108. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . The Court has held thus: “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 exercised. (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 FIR 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.” 9. (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.” 9. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.7.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the copy of Adhar Card of petitioner No.2 in which his date of birth is mentioned as 3.1.2008, as such he appears to 14-15 years on the date incident. 10. From perusal of the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) as also the FIR (Annexure P/2) lodged by petitioner No.2, it is seen that the incident took place on 21.3.2021 at around 7 pm. Petitioner No.2 Harsh Kumar promptly lodged the FIR on the same day against respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal under Section 294, 323 & 506 of IPC whereas the impugned FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 against the petitioners after 10 days of the incident. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned FIR for such delay. This apart, from a bare reading of the impugned FIR it is evident that there is no allegation in it constituting the offence under Section 294 of IPC, which is a cognizable offence or Section 506 of IPC which is a non-cognizable offence. The impugned FIR appears to be nothing but an afterthought. 11. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of law regarding quashing of FIR and the material available on record, we are inclined the allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No.183/2021 registered at Police Station-Mungeli (CG) is hereby quashed. The pending application, if any, stands disposed of.