JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present applicants seek following reliefs:-

“A. Admit this application.

B. Allow this application by quashing the FIR lodged against the applicant being C.R.No.I-4 of 2014 with Himmatnagar (Rural) Police Station.

C. Grant interim relief by staying further process pursuant to the FIR being C.R.No. I-4 of 2014 lodged with Himmatnagar (Rural) Police Station, pending admission and till final disposal of this application.

D. Grant such other and further relief/s as may deem fit to the Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

2. One Mr. J.P.Modi, R.T.O. Inspector at Himmatnagar lodged an FIR with Himmatnagar Rural Police Station against the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 323, 504, 506(2), 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, with the contention that on 10.01.2014 at around 04:30 pm, the complainant along with other officers of the R.T.O. office Himmatnagar on their duty and they were working in the R.T.O. office, at that time, the accused came to the complainant and directed to sign on HGV papers, so, at that time, the complainant informed both the accused to provide incomplete detail of Form No. 22, and thereafter, the complainant informed both accused that till the form is completed, they will not sign HGV papers. Having heard so, the accused started ruckus and altercation with the complainant and spoken filth and abuse word and also pass the threat to life of complainant.

3. In the aforesaid context, at the hand of J.P.Modi, the FIR being C.R.No.I-4 of 2014 came to be registered with Himmatnagar (Rural) Police Station.

4. Claiming the above FIR as an abuse of process of law, inter alia, on the ground mentioned in the application, the applicant seeks for quashment of FIR.

5. Heard learned advocate U.M.Kharadi, appearing on behalf of the applicants and Mr. H.K.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Though served to respondent No.2, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 either in person or through an advocate.

6. Mr. U.M.Kharadi, learned advocate would argue that the FIR filed by the original complainant is a counterblast to the complaint filed by the present applicants before the ACB police station against some of the officers of the R.T.O. as well as since the present applicants are repeatedly asking the information under RTI Act from the R.T.O. office, taking grudge of the same, the present false and frivolous FIR has been filed by the R.T.O. Officer. He would further submit that since the present applicants have bring the corrupt practice of the R.T.O. officer to the light, being aggrieved by such, the R.T.O. officer has filed the false complaint. The applicants have never indulging passed threat to the complainant. They have not spoken abuse and filthy words but the applicants are falsely involved in the offence by filling false and frivolous FIR.

7. Mr. Kharadi, would further submit that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly filed with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge such proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code and would further submit that the present FIR is one such, which is filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance against the applicant with a view to take the private and personal grudge as applicants are indulging in filing the complaint against the R.T.O. officers either before the ACB or under the RTI Act.

8. Upon such submission, learned advocate U.M.Kharadi would submit to allow this application and to quash and set aside the FIR.

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that th