The main legal point established is that the court can quash a FIR based on the abuse of process of law and lack of evidence for the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. MENGDEY, J.

1. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being II CR No. 27 of 2014 registered with Dholka Police Station.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krunal Shah for learned Advocate Mr. B.A. Surti for the Applicants. He submitted that the present FIR came to be lodged against the present Applicants as they had been named as witnesses in the FIR lodged by one Ambaben Arjunbhai Thakore. In fact the Applicants have not made any phone calls to anybody as alleged in the FIR. The present FIR had been lodged by the Respondent - First Informant only with a view to pressurize them not to depose against him in the FIR lodged by Ambaben. Subsequently, the Respondent and the said Ambaben have settled the matter interse. Thus, there is no point in continuing with the present FIR against the present Applicants. He also submitted that the ingredients for the offence alleged against the present Applicants in the FIR are not made out upon a plain reading of the FIR. He submitted that the present FIR has been lodged only after this Court has ordered to transfer the investigation of the offence in FIR lodged by the said Ambaben. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and quash and set aside the FIR in question.

3. The Application is opposed by learned APP Mr. Manan S. Mehta. He submitted that upon a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the present Applicants had one by one telephoned the witness Vasim Akram and had threatened him. He further submitted that the present Applicants had threatened the said Vasim Akarm as he was cited as a witness in the FIR lodged by Ambaben and had threatened him with dire consequences if he deposed anything against them. Thus, the offence alleged in the FIR are clearly made out against the present Applicants. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

4. Learned Advocate Ms. Nishka Prajapati for learned Advocate Mr. H.R. Prajapati appearing for Respondent No. 2 has also opposed the present Application. She also submitted that that the offence alleged against the present Applicants in the FIR in question are clearly made out. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

6. As per the case of prosecution, on 20.2.2014, Vasim Akram had gone to the place of the Respondent - First Informant and informed him that on 12.2.2014, he had received a phone call from Applicant No. 1. The Applicant No. 1 told him in the threatening tone that Gohil has been asked to be suspended and that everybody is to be taught a lesson and all the persons who are cited as witnesses are to be roped in. The FIR states that on 12.2.2014 itself another call was received by the said Vasim Akram in the evening from the present Applicant No. 2. He had also threatened the said Vasim Akram to the aforesaid effect. Thereafter on 22.2.2014, a phone call was received by the said Vasim Akram from Applicant No. 3 again to the aforesaid effect. It is pertinent to note that the said Vasim Akram on 20.2.2014 goes to the place of present Respondent No. 2 and it is present Respondent No. 2 who has lodged the FIR in question. No FIR whatsoever has been lodged by the said Vasim Akrim who allegedly received the threatening calls from the present Applicants. Moreover as per the FIR itself, the alleged incident had taken place from 30.12.2013 to 20.2.2014 whereas the FIR in question came to be lodged on 23.2.2014. Therefore, there is no explanation whatsoever in lodging the FIR in question.

7. On the basis of the opinion given by the first informant, offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 507, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the present Applicants. Section 507 of the IPC reads as under:

“507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication - Whoever commits the offence of cr