JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR bearing CR No. I-42/2016 registered with Mahelav Police Station, Anand for offences punishable under sections 354(A) and 506(2) of IPC and to terminate all the subsequent proceedings in connection with the FIR.

3. The applicant states that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence. By bare reading of the FIR also, the offence is not made out. It is stated that the first informant had taken Rs.1,80,000/- from the applicant as loan on 23.1.2015 and the first informant signed on the promissory note supported by two witnesses and when the applicant demanded the said money back from the first informant, she has filed false and fabricated FIR using the criminal machinery as a tool.

4. It is stated by the applicant that Civil Suit for recovery of the loan amount has been filed and notice has been served to the first informant and that with the same set of allegations, the first informant has lodged FIR bearing CR no. I-55/2015 against the applicant prior to the present impugned FIR, wherein the first informant had indicated the time of the accident as 06.00 p.m. on 7.12.2015, while on the contrary, presence of the applicant was found at another place from 02.00 p.m. to 07.52 p.m., which was supported by CCTV footage and Police Inspector of Petlad Town Police Station had given certificate to that effect and the applicant was present at the Police Station at the time mentioned in the FIR. It is stated that the complainant is habitual in registering the FIR.

5. Today, the original complainant is present before this Court. The report of the Police Inspector, Petlad Police Station is produced on record. Along with the police investigation papers, certain photographs of the present applicant with the original complainant are produced. This Court asked the complainant to see those photographs which show the friendly relations of the applicant with the complainant. The complainant could not refute those photographs which show their romantic and intimate relationship. Along with the police papers, photographs of CCTV footage are also produced. The allegation is under Section 354(A) and 506(2) of the IPC. The FIR reflects the promissory note which she claims to be forged and also about the Civil Suit in the Court of Anand. The allegations are that on 7.12.2015, the applicant had restrained the complainant and had held her hand and after abusing him in filthy language, had alleged to throw acid on her, while the applicant suggests that at the relevant time, he was at different place on that day from 02.00 p.m. to 07.52 p.m. and for that purpose, he relies on CCTV footage and also states that the Police Inspector, Petlad Town Police Station has certified that he was present at the Police Station and for that, photographs have been produced to show presence of the applicant at the Police Station.

6. Considering the documents on record, the allegation appears to be improbable. The FIR appears to be counter blast to the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the complainant.

7. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:-

“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wh