Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sayed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1176 of 2020 (State vs. Kanhaiya and others) arising out of case crime no. 1688 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahar as well as charge-sheet dated 30.11.2019 and cognizance order dated 5.2.2020  and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed had he may be permitted to delete the name of accused-applicant no. 1  Rajendra Kumar alias Raju because he has died a month ago. Prayer is allowed. He is permitted to delete the name of the accused-applicant no. 1, Rajendra Kumar alias Raju. As per allegation made in the FIR which has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 that on 30.11.2017, one contract was to be awarded for exhibition in district Aligarh, in which to participate, the informant's son Naved (injured) had gone with the informant to Aligarh, there the contractor of Aligarh namely Kanhaiya, applicant no. 2 and Rajendra, applicant no. 1 and some other persons were also present with them. The informant and his son were not allowed to participate in the said proceedings on the basis of showing some infirmities in their documents and therefore, the contract was awarded in favour of the accused-applicants. The informant in order to get the said contract set aside, had gone to Allahabad High Court on 21.12.2012 then he came to know that his son Naved was shot dead by the applicants along with his two other companions. On receipt of this information, the informant returned to Bulandshahar forthwith. On 23.12.2017 it was disclosed to the informant by his son Suhail @ Sani Gazi that on 22.12.2017, Suhail @ Sani Gazi along with Naved (injured) and his uncle's brother Chaman had gone to Regal Gym for work out and were returning about 7.30 p.m. from there, then the applicants along with his two other companions enquired about Naved (injured), soon thereafter, the applicant no. 2 Kanhaiya and applicant no. 1 Rajendra had pointed out about Naved and further two other co-accused Suhail and Shahid opened fire upon him. In this occurrence Naved had got seriously injured. The injuries received by Naved have not been enclosed by the learned counsel for the applicants. Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the cognizance has been taken erroneously by the court below. Role of the accused-applicants at the most constitutes offence only under section 147, 120-B IPC and not beyond that. Regarding cognizance, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the same has been taken on a printed format and therefore, no application of judicial mind has been made, therefore, cognizance needs to be quashed. He has relied upon the law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court  in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein following seven conditions have been enumerated and if the case is found to be covered under any of those conditions, the criminal proceedings could be quashed. Paragraph nos. 102 and 103 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:- '102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' '103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.? This Court is of the view that the police after having recorded statement of witnesses i.e as many as 20 witnesses, has filed charge-sheet. From a perusal of the contents of FIR, the cognizable offence is apparently made out against the accused-applicants. This court does not find any ground to interfere with the cognizance taken by the trial court in this case.  I have gone through the cognizance order also which is a typed written order in which the date of submission of case diary has been filled up and thereafter it has been written that the entire case diary was perused  and ground for taking cognizance is sufficient and the ordered to register and summon the accused on the next date fixed therein, though the said order is a typed one leaving blank two dates, which have been filled up by hands, does not mean that no application of judicial mind is made out. In view of the above, finding no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants. This application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. ;