ORDER :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of summoning order, dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in challan filed by the police in case FIR No. 135 of 2016, dated 12.04.2016, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that private respondent No. 4, Praveen Kumari filed a written complaint before learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., which was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Mandi through letter No. DJ-R(Per)/MND2016-2646, dated 4th May, 2016 for taking appropriate necessary action as per law. Police after having received aforesaid complaint, lodged FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.5.2016, under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner.

3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 reveals that during investigation in the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, allegation with regard to "criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty", as levelled in the FIR was not found to be correct and accordingly, investigating officer deleted Section 354 of IPC while submitting charge sheet before the competent court of law. After completion of the investigation, police presented charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for having committed offence under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 4, Mandi, H.P.

4. Learned court below taking cognizance of challan filed by the police, issued summons, returnable for 27.6.2017, directing therein petitioner to remain present on the given date (Annexure P-8). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as summoning order on the ground that bare reading of FIR as well as challan filed in the competent court of law, nowhere discloses offences, if any, against the petitioner much less under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC.

5. Careful perusal of reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 reveals that petitioner had some boundary dispute with respondent No. 4, who was working as Nazir in District Court Mandi, H.P. Since private respondent No. 4 and her family had encroached upon the Government land, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner's family and mother of private respondent No. 4 had got prepared false, fake and forged tatima, petitioner filed a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, alleging therein that mother of private respondent No. 4 has prepared false, fake and forged tatima of the Government land, resultantly, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the police (Annexure P-1). Police took cognizance on aforesaid complaint and after investigation arrived at a conclusion that mother of private respondent No. 4 has committed offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC and accordingly registered FIR No. 28 of 2015 against the mother of private respondent No. 4. Mother of private respondent No. 4, Smt. Kaushalya Devi also filed Civil Suit No. 18 of 2012 for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi, H.P. (Annexure P-3) against the petitioner.

6. Reply of respondent No. 1 to 3 reveals that private respondent No. 4 in the year 2013 committed offence under Sections 447, 504, 506, 34 of IPC alongwith other three persons against the petitioner and his family by raising unnecessary dispute on the boundary of the petitioner and his family and matter was reported to the police and in that regard, FIR No. 19/2013, dated 28.01.2013 was registered with police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., at the behest of the petitioner (Annexure P-4).

7. It is quite apparent from