ORDER

Instant petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 86/2023 dated 2/4/2023 registered at Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 294, 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC and further quashment of criminal proceedings flowing therefrom.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners has been falsely implicated in the matter as the entire story put forth by prosecution is false and fabricated. For the same offence, an FIR was also lodged by one of the petitioner No. 4-Ram Lakhan which was registered vide Crime No. 84/2023 by the same police station for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and in counterblast, the instant FIR has been got registered and since complainant party is having very influence over the society, their FIR though lodged later than the FIR of petitioners; however, in the later FIR after investiation, charge-sheet has already been filed, whereas, in the earlier FIR, lodged by petitioners, same is put in abeyance on the pretext of pending investigation, which shows the mala fide of police authorities. Further at the time of incident, as claimed by complainant, petitioners were at Police Station and this fact can be verified through CCTV footage available with the police. Complainant in handing glove with police, got the instant FIR registered in counter blast. On these ground, prayer for quashment of FIR has been made out.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false FIR; however, to prove their respective innocence, trial is necessary. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard.

In the opinion of this Court the grounds raised by petitioners to prove their part of innocence, can only be pleaded and proved by leading evidence and thus the grounds as tried to be raised is matter of evidence and can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination of the witnesses. Merely by referring that petitioners have been falsely implicated, no conclusion can be drawn pre- empting the controversy. Best way to reach the truth is trial; wherein, cross- examination would bring forth the exact facts.

Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised sparingly under the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. When the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie. The defence raised by the accused persons cannot be considered at the stage of exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the legitimate prosecution should not be stifled at such an early stage. In the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora, (2013) 10 SCC 581, Apex Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the Court should not "Kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

The allegation made against the petitioners do prima facie make out an offence as referred above. Further in the case in hand, trial is in progress and therefore, petitioners may plead their part of innocence by leading evidence oral as well as documentary in trial in accordance with law in trial. At this stage no indulgence can be shown, case has to be seen on its own merits.

However, before parting with the matter it is considered apposite to observe that if the investigation is still pending in relation to FIR registered on behalf of petitioners, then t