JUDGMENT : 1. JUDGMENT : 1. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Code’), petitioners seek quashment of the FIR No. 0098/2020 dated 24.09.2020 registered against them in Police Station Billawar (Kathua) for commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 147, 427, 452 r/w section 34 IPC on the following grounds: (i) that FIR bearing No. 0098/2020 for commission of offences under Sections 323, 147, 427, 452, 34 IPC has been lodged against the petitioners as a counter blast to the FIR No. 97 u/ss 336, 323, 147, 201 IPC lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2 on account of the attack and injuries suffered by the petitioners; (ii) that a bare look at the FIR impugned bearing No. 0098/2020 would elucidate that the alleged occurrence had happened at 10:00 pm in front of the residence of the respondent No.2, whereas, the fact remains that in the FIR No. 97 registered at the behest of the petitioners wherein they have sustained injuries, the time of occurrence has been mentioned at 09:30 pm which is much prior to the time as is mentioned in impugned FIR, further from the complaint of the respondents whereupon impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioners, and that of the FIR against the respondent No.2, one conclusion can be safely arrived at is that even respondent No.2 has been in agreement that there has been dislodging or the cutting of the water pipes of the petitioners at the hands of the respondent No.2 which thus became the root cause of the occurrence as is alleged by the petitioners; (iii) that FIR bearing No. 0097/2020 has been registered by the police on 23.09.2020 upon the basis of the statement of petitioners recorded in the hospital by the police itself, whereas respondent No.2 has himself gone to the police on 24.09.2020 to get impugned FIR No. 98/2020 registered and that too with written application, the contents whereof are such which cannot be expected of a rustic villager to be penned and the conduct of the respondent No.2 is such which renders that whole of his case is improbable and liable to be quashed which has been registered only as a counterblast to the FIR registered by the petitioners; (iv) that impugned FIR No. 98/2020 registered at the behest of the respondent No.2 finds mention that the petitioners have wrongfully trespassed into the house of the respondent No.2, whereas, in the report submitted by the police in the bail application of the petitioners, offence under section 452 IPC has been converted into 451 IPC, further it has also been alleged in the complaint that son of the complainant has suffered fracture, which is apparently wrong and incorrect fact, again respondent No.2 has mentioned in the complaint that there has been use of Toka, hockey and lathis on the part of the petitioners which averments have also been proved incorrect and also no injury were reported by the respondent No.2, whereas, in the later part of the FIR it is mentioned that the police came on spot and shifted the injured to the hospital including the respondent No.2 and they are in critical condition, all these facts goes to prove that the allegations and averments made in the complaint based upon the FIR impugned is registered is nothing but bundle of mala fides, as such are required to be quashed; (v) that police machinery has failed to conduct the investigation of the case in fair and impartial manner and has bothered least to text itself in terms of conducting the investigation to elucidate the fact and truth out of matters under investigation before them, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are absolutely false and baseless and therefore same be quashed on the ground of mala fides, the police have even gone to the extent of fudging, managing and manipulating the record and medical record of the case to give undue benefit and favour to the respondent No.2, in order to give undue advantage and change the complexion of the case, the actual medical record i.e. MRD No. 1006394 dated 24.09.2020 with MLC bearing No. 4533 of the petitioner No.1 has been left out wherein the ward report of the Ortho unit has been procured and based thereupon it has been opined that the injury sustained by the petitioner No.1 is simple in nature in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner No.1 has sustained head injury which as per medical record is 5 ½ inches in length and has suffered number of stitches on the head, further the police has forged and fabricated the medical record to the extent that the doctor had opined about the nature of injury in the month of December 2020 whereas the ward report based upon which the said opinion has been given by the doctor was given in the month of February 2021 meaning thereby the ward report is of later in time based upon which the doctor had opined about the nature and seriousness of the injury, all this goes to the root of the case and proves that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the FIR of the petitioners and thus FIR impugned herein requires to be quashed; (vi) that the FIR of the petitioners has been registered much prior to the receipt of information with Police Station Billawar, whereupon instant FIR impugned herein has been registered, further the FIR impugned does not contain the basic ingredients of the offences alleged; (vii) that the allegations contained in impugned FIR are absolutely false, baseless and improbable on the grounds, that the nature and extent of injury sustained by petitioner No.1 in the attack mounted by respondent No.2 that too on the most sensitive and serious part of the body i.e. the head, it would be impossible for the petitioners including petitioner No.1 to participate in the alleged occurrence which is reported by respondent No.2 by way of impugned FIR to occur after half an hour of the occurrence, further the time of occurrence which has been alleged by respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR by that time the petitioners were already taken to hospital and were receiving medical aid as petitioner No.1 had suffered most of the serious injuries as such participation of the petitioners in the alleged crime cannot be accepted on any count, moreso, the medical record of the petitioners annexed with the petition can bear testimony of the fact that the petitioners suffered serious injuries, the allegations of petitioner’s participation in the alleged occurrence in impugned FIR therefore is mala fides and cannot be agreed upon; (viii) that although no report in final form has been filed till date but having regard to the pattern of investigation being conducted and evidence being collected by the police in the instant FIR and also in the FIR registered by the petitioners, conduct of fair and impartial investigation which would elucidate the actual truth and the actual culprits of the occurrence at the behest of the police machinery would only be a distant dream, and thus allowing the instant FIR to sustain would only be adding to the harassment already meted out to the petitioners and their family members who have suffered grave and serious injuries; (ix) that the present case is a clear example of mala fide where the FIR has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge in order to ensure that the pressure should be created upon the petitioners to settle the FIR which they have registered against the respondent No.2. (x) that the allegations in impugned FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable and no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding in impugned FIR against petitioners; 2. Respondent No.1 in his objections/status report has contended that the present petition is not maintainable as it involves factual disputes which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in the case and requires a full-dress trial by the trial court, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence/statements which have been recorded by the investigating agency during the course of collection of evidence, the scope of High Court interfering in the matter of investigation is very bleak and the powers u/s 482 Cr.PC are to be exercised sparingly, the petitioners want this court to act as a trial court and adjudicate the facts which are disputed in nature which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 Cr.PC. It is contended, that on 24.09.2020 one person namely Puran Chand S/o Paras Ram R/o Malti Mora Surara Tehsil Billawar came at Police Station Billawar in injured condition filed written application against the accused persons for assaulting him and his family members, during the course of investigation I/O proceeded on spot, prepared site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses U/S l6l Cr.PC, seized four lathies and one hockey as weapon of offence. It is stated, that during investigation, I.O deleted offence u/s 452 IPC and while adding offence u/s 451 IPC, proved offences under sections 451, 323, 147, 427,34 IPC against as many as 10 accused persons including petitioners, namely, (1) Hukam Chand, (2) Mulkh Raj, (3) Charan Dass, (4) Sahil Sharma @ Gullo S/o Mulkh Raj, (5) Dev Sharma S/o Rakesh Sharma, (6) Rakesh Sharma @ Bittu, (7) Chaman Lal (8) Ashwani Kumar @ Vuicku S/o Joginder Kumar, (9) Nawal Sharma @ Nagu S/o Charan Dass caste Braman & (10) Kuldeep Kumar S/o Mansa Ram caste Verma all residents of Malti Tehsil Billawar, whereafter the accused persons approached this Court for the grant of stay in impugned FIR and this Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 stayed the presentation of Challan. 3. Sh. 3. Sh. Satinder Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners, while recapitulating the grounds urged in the petition, has sought the quashment of impugned FIR and consequential proceedings arising thereof by vehemently canvassing arguments, that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the impugned FIR are totally baseless and malicious, the allegations even if are taken on their face value and accepted in it’s entirety do not prima-facie constitute any cognizable offence much less any offence against the petitioners. It is argued, that as per the averments of facts pleaded in the petition, petitioners are being harassed by respondent No.2 by lodging the impugned FIR No. 98/2020 which is counter blast to implicate the petitioners and his family members in false case, whereas, FIR No. 97/2020 has already been registered by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is abusing the process of law solely to wreck vengeance upon the petitioners and to victimize them by lodging impugned FIR which deserves to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) 1992 AIR (SC) 604 [State of Haryana vs Ch. Bhajan Lal], (ii) 1998(5) SCC 749 [M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Special Judicial Magistrate] & (iii) (2010) 11 SCC 226 [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors.]. 4. Sh. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG has sought dismissal of the petition by strenuously articulating arguments, that petitioners/accused have committed very heinous offences punishable u/ss 452, 323, 147, 427 r/w section 34 IPC whereby impugned FIR No. 98/2020 stand registered against them for the allegations, that on 23.09.2020 when the complainant (respondent no.2) of impugned FIR and his family members were at their house, petitioners/accused asked the complainant to repair the pipe as it was leaking near their house, the complainant replied that he will call the plumber in the morning and shall get the pipe repaired, however, upon this petitioners/accused got infuriated whereby accused No.1 to 9 gathered alongwith 5/6 other persons having lathies, hockey’s in their hands, accused Nos. 1 & 2 entered in the house of complainant, accused No.1 caught hold of wife of complainant and accused No.2 beat her with hockey and when the complainant tried to rescue his wife accused No.3 attacked the complainant with Toka and injured him, and at the same time accused No.6 attacked the son of complainant namely Gopal and hit him mercilessly, the other member of the family to save their lives shut the door of their house. It is argued, that offences u/ss 452, 323, 147, 427 r/w section 34 IPC have been proved against petitioners/accused, but due to the interim directions of this court, the challan could not be produced in the court of law. In support of his arguments, learned Dy. AG has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in, 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 796 [Upkar Singh vs Ved Prakash]. 5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, perused the record meticulously, gone through the relevant law on the subject matter and scanned the ratios of judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the parties. 6. It is apt to reiterate here, that the powers of quashing a criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under section 482 Cr.pc should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare case where there is a clear abuse of process of court and when the criminal proceedings are found to have been initiated with mala-fide intention to wreck vengeance or to cause harm to accused or when the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 [State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, while dealing with the scope and powers of High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observing that the proceeding could be quashed for securing the ends of justice when the proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention to wreck vengeance, while succinctly laying down certain parameters, in paras 102 & 103 held as under:- 102. 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 channelized 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 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. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. In (1998) 5 SCC 749 [Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the extraordinary powers of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relying upon the ratio of the judgment decided in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), in para 22 of the judgment held as under: “22. It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this court examined the extraordinary power under article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to the followed by the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is 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. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure, The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers.” 9. In (2010) 11 SCC 226 [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors] further relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly held, “that though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are wide, however, such powers require care/caution in its exercise, the interference must be on sound principles, and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC”. 10. Ratios of the judgments of “Bhajan Lal’s Case”, “M/S Pepsi Food Ltd. Case” & “Gourishetty Mahesh’s Case” (Supra) lay down an invariable principle of law that where the allegations in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, the criminal proceedings should be quashed. Ratio decidendi of the judgments (Supra) squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. Ratio decidendi of the judgments (Supra) squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. It is pertinent to mention here, that the record demonstrates that FIR No. 97/2020 for commission of offences punishable u/ss 336,323,147, 201 IPC has already been lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2 (A-1) and other 7 accused persons namely, A-2 Lady Guddu Devi (w/o Puran Chand), A-3 Ganesh Kumar, A-4 Ajay Kumar, A-5 Rinku, A-6 Sonu (all sons of Puran Chand), A-7 Roshan Lal & A-8 Jabar Kashmir on 24.09.2020 in regard to the occurrence dated 23.09.2020 happened at 2130 hours (9.30pm) prior in time to the impugned FIR lodged by respondent No.2. The medical certificates (Annexure-III to the petition at page 28) and also page 30 depict that petitioner No.1 Mulkh Raj (injured in FIR No.97/2020) was examined by the Doctor wherein Doctor has mentioned the time of his examination as 10.20pm on 23.09.2020. Similarly, petitioner No.2 Chaman Lal (injured) in terms of medical certificate at page No.31 of the petition has been shown to be examined by the Doctor during the evening of 23.09.2020 at 10.30 pm. The medical certificates aforesaid demonstrate that petitioners/injured were receiving treatment in the Hospital at 10.20pm/10.30pm during the evening of 23.09.2020 when they were allegedly assaulted by respondent party at 9.30pm. Impugned FIR No. 98/2020 has been lodged by respondent No.2 in Police Station Billawar on 24.09.2020 for the occurrence of the evening of 23.09.2020 at 2200 hours (10pm). Impugned FIR discloses, that the occurrence against petitioners is alleged to have occurred at 10pm on 23.09.2020. It is apt to reiterate here, that regarding FIR No.97/2020 lodged by petitioner No.2 the time of occurrence is 9.30pm on 23.09.2020 while the impugned FIR No. 98/2020 the time of occurrence is shown as 10 pm on 23.09.2020. The medical reports aforesaid annexed with the petition make it abundantly clear, that the petitioners were receiving treatment in the Hospital in regard to injuries suffered by them for occurrence of FIR No. 97/2020 at 10.20pm and it could not be humanly/physical possible by them to appear and mount assault upon respondent No.2 and others in the impugned FIR at 10pm. The allegations in the impugned FIR when taken in conjunction with FIR No. 97/2020 and the medical reports, appear to be so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which this court cannot come to the conclusion that at the time petitioners were receiving treatment in the Hospital at 10.20pm they could be present on the scene of crime at 10pm during the same evening. The allegations against the petitioners in the FIR/complaint if accepted in their entirety, they do not prima-facie constitute offence or make out a case against petitioners/accused. It is trite law, that powers to quash criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.PC should be exercise sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare case, and the present case in my considered view, is a fit case for exercising such powers by this court. Ratio of the judgment relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. 11. For the forgoing reasons and discussion, I feel myself persuaded to allow the instant petition and the same is allowed. Resultantly, impugned FIR No. 0098/2020 registered at Police Station Billawar (District Kathua) at the behest of respondent No.2 against petitioners and others for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 147, 427, 34 IPC and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom/charge sheet produced in the competent court of law qua the petitioners stand hereby quashed. 12. Instant petition alongwith connected CMPs disposed of accordingly.