ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioners/accused are before this Court seeking the quashing of FIR No.266/2024, dated 27.06.2024, registered under Sections 302, 306, 201, and 34 IPC, at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts from the petition first. Complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before the ACJM, Bhinmal, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that on 26.09.2023, his son Jayaruparam, aged 25 years, went to Bhinmal for labor work but did not return home that night. On 27.09.2023, the complainant received information that a dead body had been found in Gomti Nadi. Upon reaching the spot, they identified the body, which was then taken to the mortuary of Bhinmal Hospital. The complainant alleged that the accused, who had previously worked with his son and initially had a good relationship with him, later fell out. The accused had reportedly beaten his son on three to four occasions before this incident. It is alleged that the accused killed his son by some means and disposed of the body in the pond. Based on these allegations, the FIR in question was registered. 3. In this context, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the case file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there are no witnesses to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners in the FIR, and that the FIR was lodged merely to falsely implicate the petitioners. The delay of 9 months in registering the FIR has not been plausibly explained, and thus, the FIR should be quashed. FIR was registered without any apparent dispute between the complainant's son and the petitioners. The complainant himself admitted being in grief and depression. Therefore, the FIR should be quashed. 5. Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor argues that the investigation is still ongoing and that the truth will be revealed during this process. He asserts that the FIR cannot be quashed solely based on the contents of the petition/affidavit, which are yet to be investigated. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after reviewing the case file and the contents of the FIR, I am of the view that the arguments presented by the petitioners and all grounds taken in the petition are factual assertions. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after reviewing the case file and the contents of the FIR, I am of the view that the arguments presented by the petitioners and all grounds taken in the petition are factual assertions. No infirmity, illegality, or irregularity in law has been pointed out in the FIR, which, on its bare reading, does not show that no offence is made out against the accused, warranting interference by this Court. 7. It is a well-established principle that to exercise discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the contents of the FIR should, on a bare reading, indicate that no offence is made out against the accused who have approached the Court. 8. In the present case, no such case is made out from the FIR to justify its quashing. The truth will be revealed during the investigation and trial, and it is not appropriate for this Court at this early stage to express any opinion on the veracity of the FIR. 9. Given the nature of the allegations and the statement recorded in the FIR, which are serious, no interference by this Court is warranted. A young man of 25 years died, and the investigation must be carried out to uncover the truth. 10. Allowing a quashing petition is not warranted unless there are compelling reasons to intervene in the ongoing legal proceedings. After considering the arguments, facts, and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR. 11. The stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor seems reasonable. 12. Resultantly, there are no grounds to interfere. The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek their remedy under the law, which may be available to them at the appropriate stage before the competent court after the investigation is complete. 13. The petition is thus dismissed. However, it is clarified that the non-interference by this Court should not be construed as an expression of merits for or against the allegations made in the FIR. The investigating agency shall proceed further in accordance with the law, without being influenced by observations made herein, which are only for the purpose of disposing of the instant petition. 14. However, it is clarified that the non-interference by this Court should not be construed as an expression of merits for or against the allegations made in the FIR. The investigating agency shall proceed further in accordance with the law, without being influenced by observations made herein, which are only for the purpose of disposing of the instant petition. 14. In the parting I may hasten to add, that the petitioners shall be at liberty to present all their defense before the competent court at the appropriate stage, including the pleas made before this Court, which remain open for adjudication.