JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.01.2021 whereby and where under cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/337/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and further to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 100 of 2021. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 10.03.2020, which was the day of Holi, at about 4:30 P.M., the petitioners along with five unknown persons reached the house of the informant and abused him. After protest by the informant and his family members, the accused persons assaulted them, caused hurt to them and thereafter, the accused persons went to their roofs and from the roofs also they threw stones and bricks. One of the family member of the informant namely Sonu Keshari got injured in the said occurrence. Though there is allegation of snatching gold chain and damaging the vehicle of the informant but during the investigation of the case, sufficient materials could not be collected by police to support the contention of the informant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the story narrated in the F.I.R. is totally false and fabricated and this case is a counter-blast to Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 filed by the petitioner no.1. It is next submitted that the father of the petitioners namely Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar filed Telaiya P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014 in the year 2014 against the informant of this case and his family members and this malicious prosecution has been initiated by the complainant to hide the malafide act of him and his family and to create pressure upon the petitioners to withdraw the said case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has filed Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 wherein he has alleged that on 10.03.2020, the informant and his family members along with five unknown persons were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly entered the house of the petitioners and abused the petitioners and their family members. Police did not immediately register F.I.R. On 12.03.2020 and 13.03.2020, application was given to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner about the occurrence and the information of non-lodging of the F.I.R. and finally on 19.03.2020, the F.I.R. was registered. It is then submitted that Sonu Keshari who is stated to be the person having sustained injury in the medical report has not been cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is then submitted that the informant in order to take revenge from the petitioners, initiated this malicious prosecution, hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 decided on 08.08.2023, reported in (2023) 5 Supreme 601 , para -33 of which reads as under:- “33. In the aforesaid context, we may clarify that delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. If the FIR, like the one in the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the accused expected to defend himself in the trial. It is altogether different to say that in a given case, in the course of investigation the investigating agency may be able to ascertain the date and time of the incident, etc. The recovery of few incriminating articles may also at times lend credence to the allegations levelled in the FIR. It is altogether different to say that in a given case, in the course of investigation the investigating agency may be able to ascertain the date and time of the incident, etc. The recovery of few incriminating articles may also at times lend credence to the allegations levelled in the FIR. However, in the absence of all such materials merely on the basis of vague and general allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused cannot be put to trial.” And submits that keeping in view the delay in lodging the F.I.R. coupled with the attending circumstances emerging from the record, the only corollary that can be drawn is that the allegations are false and the case falls under Clause -7 of para -102 in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which reads 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 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. (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. (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.” 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4820 of 2017] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the opportunity to consider the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504/506. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 and submits that the delay in filing the complaint/information must be explained. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 and submits that the delay in filing the complaint/information must be explained. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Spl. P.P. relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of General Officer, Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 228 para -70 of which reads as under:- “70. Good faith has been defined in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to mean a thing which is, in fact, done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. Anything done with due care and attention, which is not mala fide, is presumed to have been done in good faith. There should not be personal ill will or malice, no intention to malign and scandalise. Good faith and public good are though the question of fact, are required to be proved by adducing evidence. (Vide Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu [ AIR 1958 SC 767 ], Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India [ (1971) 1 SCC 85 : AIR 1971 SC 530 ], Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjiya [ (1981) 3 SCC 208 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 698 : AIR 1981 SC 1514 ], Vijay Kumar Rampal v. Diwan Devi [ AIR 1985 SC 1669 ], Deena v. Bharat Singh [ (2002) 6 SCC 336 ] and Goondla Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. [ (2008) 9 SCC 613 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 829] )” Submits that good faith and public good are the questions of facts and are required to be proved by adducing evidence, so when the allegations made against the accused persons of the case is found to be true during the investigation of the case, the same cannot be thrown out at the nascent stage before the trial begins on the ground of absence of good faith. 9. The learned Spl. 9. The learned Spl. P.P. next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 379, para -10 of which reads as under:- “10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.” And submits that a mini-trial cannot be conducted by the High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that as the allegations made against the petitioners constitute the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate; therefore this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that two F.I.Rs relating to an occurrence being a case and counter-case has both been registered belatedly on 19.03.2020. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that two F.I.Rs relating to an occurrence being a case and counter-case has both been registered belatedly on 19.03.2020. Since the occurrence is admitted by the petitioners and the undisputed fact remains that the member of the informant party has sustained injury, so it is not open to be agitated by the petitioners that no occurrence as alleged by the informant has taken place. It is next submitted that as police after investigation of the case, basing upon the injury report sustained by the victim on the informant side has rightly held that the offences punishable under Section 323/337/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case. If during the course of the investigation, police finds sufficient material, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned, it may add any offence for which the F.I.R. of a case is not registered to such F.I.R., later on also and it can add the relevant penal provisions in the charge sheet by mentioning in the chargesheet that during investigation an offence was found to have been committed by the accused, which was not disclosed in the F.I.R. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that there was some occurrence on 10.03.2020 for which a case and counter case being Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 and 44 of 2020 have been instituted. While in Telaiya P.S. Case No.44 of 2020, the petitioners are accused persons, in Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020, the petitioner no.1 is the informant. There is an injury report showing one of the members of the informant of Telaiya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020 namely Sonu Keshari having sustained injury by hard and blunt weapon. During the investigation of the case, police also found that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. There is an injury report showing one of the members of the informant of Telaiya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020 namely Sonu Keshari having sustained injury by hard and blunt weapon. During the investigation of the case, police also found that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The case diary or the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been brought on record of this criminal miscellaneous petition; by the petitioner. There is no material before this Court to know as to which witnesses stated what before the police in their respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Without going through the same, this Court could not opine that there is no material to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code but the admitted occurrence of assault between the parties which took place on 10.03.2020 coupled with the fact that Sonu Keshari sustained injury prima facie is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323/337 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, after going through the materials in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record do not indicate that the present criminal proceeding against the petitioners is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The allegations made in the F.I.R, if treated to be true in their entirety, the same is sufficient to constitute offences. The delay in lodging the respective F.I.R. that is case and counter case, is from both the sides. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the order dated 16.01.2021 whereby and where under cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/337/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 100 of 2021. 14. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.