The central legal point established is that unsupported allegations, malafide intent, and ulterior motive can lead to the quashing of proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of Rapat No.39 dated 08.03.2016, whereby the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for having committed an offence under Section 326 IPC in a cross-version to the FIR No.187 dated 24.11.2015, which was recorded at his instance, under Sections 325, 323/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Jalalabad(w), Police District Fazilka against respondent No.2 besides few others.

2. The facts of the case are that on account of an incident dated 10.11.2015, relating to a dispute about cultivation of land between two neighbors, FIR No.187 dated 24.11.2015 came to be registered at the instance of present petitioner against respondent No.2, besides his son, namely, Happy and two others for having allegedly caused injuries to him. Later on, a complaint was submitted by respondent No.2 making allegations against the petitioner as well as his wife-Sudesh Rani and daughter-Pooja Rani, which was recorded vide General Diary No.24 dated 11.11.2015, at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka, for allegedly having given spade blow on his knee of left leg by Pooja Rani.

3. Upon an inquiry conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar Jalalabad, though the aforesaid version was not found to be correct, however, still a General Diary No.39 dated 08.03.2016 was registered under Section 326 IPC against the petitioner for having inflicted injury on the knee of left leg of respondent No.2.

4. Assailing the aforesaid general diary No.39 dated 08.03.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though upon an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sadar, Jalalabad, allegations levelled at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner, his wife and daughter could not be verified, however, still for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, the same has been recorded against the petitioner for having allegedly committed an offence under Section 326 IPC. He further submits that even the MLR of respondent No.2, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 does not supports his version of having received injuries in the incident dated 10.11.2015, which admittedly took place between 4 to 5 p.m. in the evening and thus, prays for its quashing.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made at the instance of the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner was indicted after a thorough inquiry/investigation conducted by a senior officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalalabad and the version of respondent No.2 was even corroborated from his MLR of having received injury on the lower portion of the knee of his left leg.

6. Despite having been served, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent No.2.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

8. A conjoin reading of FIR No.187 dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P4 at pages 16 - 22), the general diary No.24 dated 11.11.2015 (Annexure P1 at pages 11-13) and the MLR of respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3 at page 14) shows that admittedly, the incident took place on 10.11.2015 at around 4/5 p.m., whereas respondent No.2 got himself medico legally examined at around 9:15 p.m. on that day. Perusal of his MLR shows that a clear observation has been made thereupon by the Medical Officer regarding the probable duration of the injuries to be within 30 minutes i.e. approximately between 8 to 9 p.m. This fact alone falsified the story set up by respondent No.2 himself of having received injuries in the incident, which allegedly took place between 4/5 p.m. on 10.11.2015.

9. Furthermore, as per the original version given by respondent No.2 at the time of recording of General Diary No.24 dated 11.11.2015, he was inflicted injuries by Pooja Rani i.e. the daughter of present petitioner only, whereas admittedl