1. The petitioner, who is, according to the submission by learned APP, absconding and despite efforts by the investigation officer, has not been available for investigation process/for recording statement, has taken out present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming that the investigation in the matter of alleged offence under Sections 307, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)A and (b) and 27(1) of Arms Act may be stopped and terminated/quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code. It is prayed, inter alia, that:

6(i) that Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR registered at DCB Police Station, Vadodara vide C.R. No.I-25/2012 qua the present petitioner;

6(ii) that Your Lordships be pleased to stay further proceedings qua the present petitioner in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-25/2012 registered with DCB Police Station, Vadodara during the pendency of this petition;

2. The petitioner has preferred present petition in backdrop of the fact that a Police Inspector, DCB Police Station, Vadodara, has submitted FIR, alleging offence punishable under Sections 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)A & (b) and 27(1) of Arms Act, wherein the petitioner herein is one of the accused persons (the petitioner is accused No.3 in the said FIR).

3. In present petition, the petitioner has, inter-alia, claimed that the impugned FIR may be quashed because it is lodged on inadmissible evidence and the allegations are false and have been made only to harass the petitioner. It is also claimed that on the statement and allegations by a co-accused, the petitioner is falsely involved as accused person in the impugned FIR.

3.1 According to the Fir, one person (Accused No.1 in present case) who is in judicial custody as accused in several offence of serious nature allegedly asked two person who also were in custody (after getting arrested in connection with offence under Sections 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)A & (b) and 27(1) of Arms Act and not seeking, for couple of days, released on bail) to kill a particular person (i.e. contract killing) who was to be witness against the said person i.e. present accused No.1) who is son of present petitioner. It is also alleged, as per FIR, that the said two persons were asked to collect Rs.50,000/- (for the said job/contract killing) from his father i.e. present petitioner. It is further alleged that after the said meeting of said two persons with present accused No.1, the said two persons got released on bail. It is also alleged that after being released on bail said two persons and the person connected with accused No.1, received the amount as per instructions of accused No.1 and thereafter a weapon (revolver) was purchased from Madhya Pradesh. It is also also alleged that subsequently an attempt to kill (by firing gunshot) the target was made but the assailant missed the targeted person and the person at when shot was armed turned out to be a mistake of identity (i.e. was not the person who was actually to be the target). It is also alleged that another attempt was also made, but it failed.

3.2 It appears that on the basis of such information received by police the FIR came to be filed and investigation commenced. The petitioner-accused No.3 is aggrieved by it. Hence present petition.

4. Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and has reiterated the contentions raised in the petition. He has also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had given any money to any one, much less to the other two accused persons whose names are mentioned in the FIR. He has also submitted that it is only on statement of co-accused that the petitioner s name is mentioned in the FIR though it is settled position that statement of co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that during the period in question