JUDGMENT :

Niral R. Mehta, J.

1. By way of this Criminal Misc. Application, the applicant, who is accused no. 3, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. 11211045220164 of 2022 lodged on 2nd July 2022 before the Sayla Police Station, District Surendranagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pawan Barot appearing for the applicant as well as learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat.

3. Mr. Barot submitted that the impugned complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and filed only with a mala-fide intention to see that the relative of the applicant who is facing the charges under Section 302 of the IPC may not get the bail.

4. Mr. Barot further submitted that the relatives of the applicant has filed his bail application before this Court on 30th June 2022, and thereby with a view to create a good defence and/or prejudice to the Court, such a false complaint came to be filed on 2nd July 2022 for the offence alleged to have happened on 4th June 2022. Mr. Barot further submitted that on bare perusal of Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC, the ingredients are not attracted. Mr. Barot heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, which squarely covers the issue and thereby the impugned FIR is required to be quashed.

5. By making the above submissions, Mr. Barot, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, has prayed before this Court to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application.

6. Per contra, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State, has vehemently opposed the present application and contended that the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be considered as the investigation is at the very threshold and has just begun. She further submitted that the present applicant is alleged to have administered threats to the complainant because there was past enmity between them, more particularly, the husband of the complainant has been murdered by some of the relatives of the present applicant.

7. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that the bare perusal of the FIR would, prima-facie, constitute the offence and this Court may not entertain this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that considering the fact that the husband of the complainant was murdered by some of the relatives of the present applicant and thereby not once but twice threats have been administered on previous dates, i.e. on 4th June 2022 and 21st June 2022 and to which, there is an independent witness also called Navghanbhai Somabhai Sambad, who not only identified the applicant but also gave the car number in which the applicant visited at the place of the complainant.

8. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code are very clearly made out. According to Ms. Thakkar, all the ingredients of the definition of criminal intimidation are prima facie made out and, thereby this Court may not entertain the present application by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. By making the above submissions, Ms. Thakkar, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has prayed before this Court to dismiss the present Criminal Misc. Application.

10. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the materials on record. No other further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties except what is stated herein above.

11. Having considered the submissions of both the sides, at the outset it is required to be noted that prior to the lodgement of the impugned FIR, there is one