*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’ only, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.84 dated 07.11.2022, Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa. Vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioners are facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Satnam Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant/respondent No.2’ only. It was stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that on 06.11.2022, at about 06:00-07:00 pm, he was going home from his field on his tractor. According to complainant/respondent No.2, on the way near Grain Market, ‘Gurpiar Singh’ and ‘Arshdeep Singh’ met him, they intercepted his tractor and exhorted to teach a lesson for seeking passage through their land. As per complainant/respondent No.2, ‘Arshdeep Singh’ picked-up a brick-bat and hit the same on the chest of complainant/respondent No.2, whereas ‘Gurpiar Singh’ caught hold of the collar of the complainant/respondent No.2, pulled him down from the tractor and then inflicted injury on the head of complainant/respondent No.2 with the help of a kirch.

It was further stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the above-named two assailants were joined by ‘Darshan Singh’, ‘Jagsir Singh’, ‘Kuldeep Singh’, ‘Hardeep Singh’, ‘Gurdeep Singh’ and ‘Avtar Singh’, who supported ‘Arshdeep Singh’. The complainant/respondent No.2 further alleged that in the meantime, ‘Labh Kaur’, grandmother of the complainant/respondent No.2, arrived on the spot, and when she was trying to handover dinner to the complainant/respondent No.2, she was pushed on the ground by ‘Avtar Singh’, as a result of which her tooth broke.

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, two accused named by complainant/respondent No.2, namely ‘Avtar Singh’ and ‘Gurmit Singh’ were found to be innocent and therefore, they have not been prosecuted.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that instant case is the live example of misuse of process of law by using the law enforcement agency, i.e. police, and that the prosecution of the petitioners on the complaint of complainant/respondent No.2 is patently illegal and in violation of settled principles of law. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the falsity of the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served as foundation for the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 had levelled specific allegations against ‘Avtar Singh’, qua the fact that he pushed ‘Labh Kaur’, which resulted into breaking of her tooth. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of investigation, abovesaid ‘Avtar Singh’ has been found to be innocent, and thus, the very credibility of the allegations of complainant/respondent No.2 stands shattered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in the present case, the allegations against other co-accused, namely ‘Gurmit Singh’, have also been found to be false during the course of investigation, and he (Gurmit Singh) has not been challaned by the police. While referring to the abovementioned events, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the abovementioned outcome of investigation makes it abundantly clear that the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 was nothing, but a bundle of lies.

In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, otherwise also, the allegations contained in the FIR itself shows that firstly no grievous injury, whatsoever, has been alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioners and se