JUDGMENT :

Satish Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet No. 310/2018 arising out of FIR No. 71/2018 registered at Police Station Rainwal, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 323, 341, 365, 143, 308 and 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the police after investigation has submitted charge sheet in the matter, but the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings is maintainable even after filing of challan. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally false and fabricated, without conducting investigation in fair and impartial manner. Cross cases were registered regarding the same incident. Minor child of the accused-petitioners was kidnapped by the complainant and her companions. The accused-petitioners in exercise of their right to private defence had to save the child. No offence whatsoever is made out against them. The charge sheet filed against them under Section 299 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.

4. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on filing of charge sheet, the trial court was obliged to call the petitioners by issuing summons, but it has straightaway issued arrest warrants, which should be converted into bailable one. He placed reliance on Anuj Jermi vs. State, MANU/TN/1086/2012, Govind Raghe Khairnar vs. Khan Wahid Ali Maddan Khan, Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369, Prashaant Bharti vs. State NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293, Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, and Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 321 : 2013 (4) RLW 3462 (SC).

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in this incident the complainant has received as many as 19 injuries. The version put forth on behalf of the petitioners is false and after thought. The FIR or criminal proceedings can only be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when no offence is made out from bare perusal of contents of the FIR. Whereas, in this case all ingredients of the crime are mentioned in the FIR. The accused petitioners did not cooperate in the investigation and absconded, therefore, the police has filed charge sheet against them under Section 299 Cr.P.C. The accused-petitioners are habitual offenders. The petitioners are free to raise all their objections before the trial court. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and supported the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. On bare perusal of the record, it is clear that it is not a case where contents of FIR do not constitute any offence. Rather, after investigation in the matter challan under Sections 323, 341, 365, 143, 308 and 342 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST (PA) Act has been presented before the trial court. The accused-petitioners (1) Ajit @ Gopichand, (2) Roshan Singh, (3) Dharti Singh @ Gograj, (4) Samundar Singh, (5) Deshraj Yadav and (6) Vinod Kumar @ Vikki did not cooperate in investigation, therefore they have been declared proclaimed offenders and charge sheet against them has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. They are still required for investigation.

9. In view of legal position as expounded in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (supp) 1 SCC 335 and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (3) RLW 1768 (SC), the criminal proceedings can only be quashed where the FIR or the police report do not constitute any offence. Whereas in this case as indicated above, not only the contents of FIR, but police after collecting necessary evidence during the course of investigation has filed the charge sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C., on perusal thereof i