JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR along with the entire criminal proceeding pertaining to Konch P.S. Case No. 187/2019, G.R. No. 3115/2019, pending before the learned court of ACJM-IIIrd, Gaya.

2. The brief facts of the case are that upon a written report of the informant, namely Uma Shankar Yadav, the FIR in question bearing Konch P.S. Case No. 187/2019 was registered on 16.06.2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 337, 307, 326, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation levelled by the informant is that at about 8:30 A.M. in the morning of 16.6.2019, while he along with his nephew Pankaj Kumar, was standing at the kiosk (gumti) of co-villager, Shiv Pujan Yadav and his grandson, namely Raju Kumar was also sitting there from before, the accused persons had arrived there and had started abusing the nephew and grandson of the informant, whereupon the grandson of the informant had protested and then the petitioner herein had arrived there in an inebriated condition and had also started abusing them, whereafter the petitioner had taken out a pistol from his waist and had pointed it on the temple of the nephew of the informant as also had fired gunshot resulting in him sustaining injuries. It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused persons had also assaulted the informant and others resulting in them receiving grave injuries.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an anticipatory bail petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78939 of 2019, which was heard and vide order dated 4.12.2019, case diary was called for, as is apparent from the order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the learned court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was pending before this Court, however, warrant was directed to be issued by the learned court below vide order dated 13.1.2020, whereafter the Investigating Officer had prayed before the learned court below to issue advertisement/ proclamation against the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned court below, vide order dated 22.2.2020. It is also submitted that thereafter, process was directed to be issued under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide order dated 29.9.2020, passed by the learned court below. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in nutshell, is that despite the petitioner being engaged in availing judicial remedy before this Hon'ble Court regarding obtaining anticipatory bail, the Investigating Officer as also the learned court below had engaged in uncalled for coercive measures to ensure that the petitioner is arrested, hence, the conduct of the Investigating Officer as also the learned court below depicts their biasness in the matter, consequently, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials on record and gone through the FIR in question as also the entire order-sheet of the case, as annexed to the present petition. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument either on the issue as to how no case is made out upon a bare reading of the FIR in question or as to why the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed and merely, it has been stated that since the learned court below has acted arbitrarily, the learned court below should be punished and the FIR should be quashed.

5. It is a well-settled law that power of quashing an FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare case’ and that too only where allegations levelled in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbabl