( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) WITHOUT there being any discussion with regard to the averments made in the complaint, the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the allegations made against four persons were absurd. In our view, this reason given by the High Court is without considering the FIR lodged at the behest of the father of the victim. In any case, this was not the stage for quashing the FIR as it is open to the investigating officer to file the appropriate report or charge-sheet after investigation on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR.

( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 13. 7. 1999, passed in Cri. Misc. No. 28820/m/1998 is quashed and set aside. However, it is directed that in case charge-sheet is submitted against respondent nos. 3 to 6, i. e. , Dalip, Inder Kumar, Harbans Singh and Giano Devi, it would be open to them to file proper application before the trial court for grant of exemption from personal appearance and the trial court would grant the same on the conditions that they would not dispute their identity as particular accused in that case, a Counsel on