1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused F.I.R. No. 1451/2001, Police Station Shri Parsoli, District Chittorgarh lodged by complainant Nana S/o Pratap Chamar against the petitioners.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the F.I.R.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has earlier also filed an F.I.R. on 23rd July, 2000 against one Jeevan Singh S/o Mod Singh and the complainant is habitual of lodging false first information reports. He further contended that the first information report lodged by the complainant is false and the present F.I.R. is also in the same sequence.

4. I have gone through the F.I.R. It constitute the cognizable offence showing occurrence dated 29th June, 2001. Another F.I.R. which was lodged by the complainant is dated 23rd July, 2000 showing occurrence of 18th July, 2000. In both the FI.Rs. the occurrences are different and the accused persons except Jeeven Singh are different. It is settled law that FI.R. can be quashed if on bare perusal of F.I.R. on the face of it, no cognizable offence is disclosed or the F.I.R. is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis