The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

1. Rule. The present application, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by the applicant – original accused seeking quashment of the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-79 of 2016 registered with Umagargao Police Station, District Valsad; for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.).

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the applicant in this applicant are as such that the complainant is residing with her family members at the address mentioned in the cause title and approximately at least four years before the filing of the present FIR, the complainant and the applicant had entered into development of one particular building viz. Mannat Building. As per the agreement, Mannat Building was constructed on the said premises and on 16.07.2016, the present applicant and other three persons had come to the house of the present complainant and tried to outrage her modesty and threate her. It is further the case of the applicant in this application that she was scared and therefore, she has lodged an FIR after a delay of four days. Hence, the present application is preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Siddhant S. Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Hardik H. Dave, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N.V. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Manan Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent No.1 – State.

4. Mr. Siddhant S. Parikh, the learned counsel for Mr. Hardik H. Dave, the learned counsel for the applicant, has asserted that prima facie, upon a bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., it becomes evident that it was lodged much later and as a counterblast to the F.I.R. already filed on 30.6.2014 by the present applicant against respondent No.2 being F.I.R. C.R. No.I-66 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), and 114 of the I.P.C. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 20.7.2016 by respondent No.2 in F.I.R. C.R. No.I-79 of 2016 for offences under Sections 354, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the I.P.C. He has further submitted that prima facie, the impugned F.I.R. is lodged as a counterblast to harass the present applicant. Upon a bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., no prudent person would consider the case of the present respondent No.2 as genuine regarding the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. Additionally, he has submitted that since the present applicant has lodged the F.I.R. as indicated above on 30.6.2014, the impugned F.I.R. is lodged by respondent No.2 on 20.7.2016. Furthermore, he has submitted that even as per the allegations in the complaint, no other person was present at the time of the incident, and the incident is narrated in a manner that prima facie does not make out any offence against the present applicant. Therefore, he has submitted that the continuation of proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to harassment to the present applicant and an abuse of the process of law. Hence, by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, as well as (ii) Inder Mohan Goswami and Another versus State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, he prays to allow the present application by quashing the impugned F.I.R.

5. On the contrary, Mr. N.V. Gandhi, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, has strongly opposed the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant and has contended that even on a bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., the offences under Sections 354, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the I.P.C. are made out. Moreover, he argues that merely lodging such F.I.R. after a period of 20 days, where the present applicant has already filed an F.I.R. against the present respondent No.2, does not preclude the respondent No.2 – complainant from lodging a complaint for the alleged incident. He has further submitted that the complainant immediately informed p