ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the the following reliefs:-

"(A) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the proceedings of FIR being Crime Register No.II-18 of 2016 registered with Alang Marine Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 114 of the IPC as well as proceeding being Criminal Case No.600 of 2016 pending before 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of FIR being Crime Register No.II-18 of 2016 registered with Alang Marine Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 114 of the IPC as well as proceeding being Criminal Case No.600 of 2016 pending before 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja;

(C) This Honourable Court will be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

2. Heard Mr. Umang Vyas, the learned advocate for Mr. Tatvadeep Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

3. At the outset, Mr. Umang Vyas, the learned advocate for Mr. Tatvadeep Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned complaint arraigning the applicants herein with the charges under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is barred as per Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Umang Vyas, the learned advocate for Mr. Tatvadeep Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order dated 17.08.2015 passed in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.2908 of 2015 and the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing and Set aside FIR/Order) No.23009 of 2015.

4. Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State was not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Umang Vyas, the learned advocate for Mr. Tatvadeep Jani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

5. Position of law :-

5.1 In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy & Anr. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein the Supreme Court observed in para-8 as under :-

“We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that In cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in S. 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.”

5.2 In the case of State of U.P. Versus Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1108, the Supreme Court has held as under :-

"It is well settled that where an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect, only the offences mentioned therein unless such offences form an integral part so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 Cr. P. C."

5.3 In case of Ramji Bhikha Koli and others v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1999 (1) GLR 790, relevant para-8 reads thus:

“8. It is undisputed that allegations made in the complaint against present petitioners include allegations in respect to offence made punishable under Section 186 of IPC. It is true that petitioners are also charged with other offences like offences made punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 333 and 307 of IPC, which ar