J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Thakore, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya, the learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicants-original accused persons, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 21 of 2017 pending in the court of the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar arising from the first information report being C.R. No. I-87 of 2016 registered at the Shihor Police Station, Dist: Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under sections 395, 504, 506(2) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under;

3.1 One Gagjibhai Popatbhai Madat, the respondent No. 2 herein, lodged a first information report with the allegations that on 16th September, 2016 at about 10:00 O' Clock, while he was present at the party plot, the accused persons came over there and insisted that they should be permitted to convene meeting. The first informant was serving as a security guard at the said party plot. Something went wrong and the applicants herein entered into an altercation with the first informant. It is alleged that the applicants herein fisticuffs and took away Rs. 1200/- from the pocket of the shirt.

3.2 In such circumstances, the first information report came to be registered.

4. It appears from the materials on record that while the first informant was about to apply lock on the main door of the party plot, the applicants herein came over there and asked him to arrange for chairs, some tea and snacks as they wanted to convene meeting. Such request was opposed by the first informant and the incident, as alleged, occurred.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 21 of 2017 pending in the court of the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar should be quashed.

6. I am of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity are spelt out. No offence punishable under section 395 could be said to have been made out. The law in this regard is well settled. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Himatsing Shivsing v. The State of Gujarat, reported in 1961 GLR 678, has observed as under:-

"Theft amounts to 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to 'robbery', the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft hurt etc., had been caused. If hurt etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in sec. 390, I.P. Code, thef