The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases, and the Court should not interfere with the investigation at the initial stage unless no offence is made out on plain reading of the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Yash Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. The present Criminal Misc. Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside FIR being Cr. No.11216010220200 of 2022 registered with Pethapur Police Station, Gandhinagar on 15.05.2022 for the offences under sections 387, 389, 120B, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. As per the allegations made in present FIR, earlier one FIR bearing number 11201002210014 was registered with CID Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad Zone under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the IPC on 08.12.2021 against present complainant. A settlement arrived at between the parties and the said FIR was quashed by an order of this Court. It is further alleged that thereafter, on 15.05.2022, a meeting was held between present accused persons, in which, present complainant was also remained present. All the accused persons forced the complainant to sign the certain papers / documents against his will. It is further alleged that at the relevant time, the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, was also present in the meeting and has also participated in the commission of the offences under sections 387, 389, 120B, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Naik with learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Asim Pandya assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Aniq Kadri for the petitioner, Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Yash Patel, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2-Original Complainant.

5. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate practicing before this Court and is very innocent and has been falsely arraigned as accused in the impugned FIR. The allegations made in the FIR do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the present petitioner. He further submits that allegation in the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by the police officer under section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the allegations made in the FIR 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 petitioner. He submits that present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a malafide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to malign his reputation and with a personal grudge since the petitioner appeared for the other side. He therefore submits that present FIR filed against the present petitioner may be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor submits that bare reading of the FIR, it discloses commission of cognizable offence and hence, the Hon’ble Court may not interfere under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR. He further submits that considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the seriousness of the alleged offence, the High Court may not use discretionary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the present petitioner. He submits that the police authority had tried to record the statement of the petitioner and hence, the police authority had visited all the relevant places where the petitioner accused may be found, but unfortunately the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. He further submits that since registration of the FIR, the petitioner is not available at his known places, his mobile phone is found switch of and considering his such conduct