R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 119/2012, registered at Police Station, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, for offences under Sections 353 and 336 I.P.C., and for offence under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.2012, the complainant, Radheyshyam Sharma, In -charge of C.H.C. Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station, Buhana, wherein he claimed that at around 07:40 A.M., the family members of the deceased, Jaiveer and other persons came to the hospital and damaged the hospital property. On the basis of the report, a formal F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 119/2012 was registered at Police Station, Buhana for the aforementioned offences. In the F.I.R., neither of the petitioners were mentioned as one of the persons who had committed the offence. However, according to the petitioners, since they had complaint against the S.H.O., he had threatened them that he would falsely implicated them in a criminal case. Therefore, according to the petitioners, subsequently, the statements of some of the witnesses were recorded, and their names have been included in the statements. It is further claimed by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Shrawani Devi was earlier a member of the Zila Parishad, and is presently the President of the Jangid Samaj, Buhana. Moreover, the petitioner No. 2, Mr. Norang Lal, her husband, happens to be a social activists in the area. It is due to their political and social standing that the S.H.O. has personal grudge against them. Hence, this petition for quashing of the F.I.R.
(2.) MR . Banwari Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has not only reiterated the facts mentioned above, but has also claimed that the complainant and the employees of the hospital have already submitted certain affidavits clearly stating that neither the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident. But the Police is not even considering these facts as the S.H.O. happens to be prejudiced against the petitioners. Therefore, his plea that the F.I.R., should be quashed. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, contended that the jurisdiction of this Court in quashing of F.I.R. is an extremely limited one. This Court is required to see if the allegations made in the F.I.R., constitute the ingredients of the offences or not. Therefore, he has contended that this Court should not interfere with the F.I.R.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties, and examined the impugned F.I.R.;