JUDGMENT :

Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of both the sides, the matters are heard finally. 1. Both the petitions are filed with the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report being FIR No.11213006210092 registered with Bhayavdar Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua the petitioners.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani appearing with learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla for respondent No.2-original complainant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Both the petitions arise out of the same First Information Report and involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common order.

4. The facts in brief are that the petitioners herein are running a Firm in the name and style of Madhuvan Gold Art. According to the petitioners, they came into contact with one Mahipatsinh Chudasama and on learning about the good business income of accused No.1, said Mahipatsinh Chudasama along with other persons decided to join the petitioners’ Firm and invested some amount by way of gold and thereby, became Partners in said Madhuvan Gold Art. It is stated that after some time, said Mahipatsinh Chudasama asked for returning the amount so invested, which was repaid by accused No.1 in the form of cash, gold and other assets, which, ultimately, led to retirement of said Mahipatsinh Chudasama from the partnership Firm. It is further stated that said Mahipatsinh Chudasama and his associates had forced and pressurized accused Nos.1 to 4 and their family members in order to extract more money from them. They had also beaten them up, abducted them and had pressurized them for extracting more money / assets from accused No.1 and his family and took away the cheque book of accused No.1.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani submitted that accused No.1 – Ladlesh Vinodrai Patadiya had approached the police to lodge a complaint against said Mahipatsinh Chudasama and others but the police failed to register a First Information Report nor any action was taken by the concerned police officer as he belonged to the same caste. The accused No.1, thereafter, approached the Court for issuance of directions for registration of First Information Report. In spite of the order of the Court, the police was not willing to proceed against said Mahipatsinh Chudasama and others. It was stated that as the accused No.1 had failed in getting the First Information Report registered, he gave an application on 16.04.2019 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, on which, the Office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister asked the police concerned to do the needful in the matter. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani further submitted that in spite of the communication from the Office of the Chief Minister, no action was taken on the written complaint given by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners preferred an application seeking transfer of investigation on 03.09.2019. The accused No.1 also made a representation to the Office of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, the Hon’ble President of India and other Constitutional Heads by way of postal communication dated 04.10.2019. The petitioners also made a representation to the District Superintendent of Police, the I.G. of Police, the Home Minister of the State and others on 05.01.2021 requesting to take action on the basis of the representation dated 16.04.2019. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 personally met the I.G. of Police, Gandhinagar, who, in turn, communicated the D.S.P., Junagadh as also the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Mangrol, to whom the investigation was handed over. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani submitted that the cheques, which were forcefully obtained by Mahipatsinh Chudasama and others, wer