The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the cause of action and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions in determining the merits of the case.

( 1 ) THE applicants/ petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that this Honourable Court be pleased to quash the complaint registered as C. R. No. I-309 of 2005 with J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara. The present application is filed on 16th November 2005. The matter was listed on Board on 18th November 2005 on an urgent note being filed by the learned advocate for the applicant. However, on that day, the learned advocate Mr. Raval was not present even during the second call. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25th November 2005.

( 2 ) ON 25th November 2005 the Court passed the following order:"notice returnable on 9th December 2005. Mrs. M. L. Shah waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1-State of Gujarat. In the meanwhile, further investigation in C. R. No. I- 309/2005 instituted at J. P. Road Police Station, baroda is stayed. Direct service so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned. "

( 3 ) ON 9th December 2005, the Court was pleased to issue fresh notice to respondent no. 2 returnable on 20th december 2005 and direct service was permitted. The matter was then listed before this Court on 20th December 2005. On 20th December 2005, when the matter was placed before this Court a request was made by the learned advocate Ms. Moksha Thakkar on behalf of Mr. A. R. Majmudar that as the learned advocate has received instructions to appear in the matter he may be granted adjournment beyond vacation. The request was granted and the interim relief was ordered to continue till further order. On 10th January 2006, the regular Court passed order to the effect that, "not before this Court. " the matter was listed before this Court on 20th January 2006, on which date the learned advocate Mr. Raval has filed sick note. The matter was adjourned to 23rd January 2006. On 23rd January 2006 the Court passed the following order: "as a last chance, the matter is adjourned to 30. 01. 2006. No further adjournment. "

( 4 ) ON 30th January 2006, Mr. Raval, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter deserves consideration in view of the facts of the case and as the law declared by the decision of the Honble the Apex Court in the matter of V. Abraham Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, reported in 2005 (1) GLH 22 is applicable to the said facts. The learned advocate submitted that the Honble the Apex Court after taking into consideration the provisions of sections 177, 178 (c), 482 and 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for brevity) is pleased to hold that,"it is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. "

( 5 ) THE learned advocate also invited attention of this court to the observations contained in para 16, which are as under:"the expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the judgement of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action".

( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document