BANWARI LAL SHARMA,J. - (1.) Petitioner-accused Dr. Nasir Khan preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing impugned FIR No. 242/2010 registered at Police Station Kaithun, Kota to the extend of petitioner-accused Dr. Nasir Khan. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.08.2010 complainant submitted a written report to SHO, P.S. Kaithun stating therein that:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 242/2010 was registered at Police Station Kaithun, Kota (Rural) under Sections 420 and 407 IPC wherein after investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused persons Arvind Singh, Surajmal Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, Mahendra Jain and Shikharchand Jain under Sections 407, 420 and 120-B IPC and investigation was kept pending against Shivveer and petitioner Dr. Nasir Khan under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is named in FIR, he is nothing to do with the alleged offence, he is being implicated by the Investigating Officer only on the allegation that he called Badri to arrange a driver for his friend Arvind Singh, that doesn't constitute any offence, therefore impugned FIR to the extend of present petitioner may be quashed. Investigating Officer Mr. Pushpendra Singh, SHO, P.S. Kaithun, Kota (Rural) is present in person who submitted factual report of the matter through learned Public Prosecutor which is taken on record. On his instructions, learned Public Prosecutor submits that after the alleged incident there is evidence that petitioner made a phone-call to one Badri for arranging driver and on request of petitioner, Badri asked to Mahendra Bairwa-driver. He submits that Mahendra Bairwa in his statement clearly stated that Arvind asked him to own the allegation upon him and state before the Investigating Officer that at the time of incident he was driver on the truck. Learned Public Prosecutor clearly conceded before this Court that in the statement of Mahendra Bairwa and Badri they never stated that petitioner asked them to own the allegation of crime of Arvind on him rather co-accused Arvind asked them to do so. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme court framed seven grounds on the basis of which the FIR can be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.105, observed as under:- "105. 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 extra-ordinary 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 be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae 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 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 F.I.R. do 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 disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do 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." From the perusal of available record and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, it reveals that if the statement of Badri and Mahendra Bairwa are accepted in toto, still no offence is made out against the present petitioner, apart from it there is no allegation against the present petitioner, therefore continuing investigation against the present petitioner is futile exercise. As such, this misc. petition deserves to be accepted as such the impugned FIR to the extend of petitioner is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not effect the investigation and prosecution against other coaccused.;