IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code, particularly Sections 394, 353, 452, and 352, in determining the existence of the alleged offences based on the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is filed to quash the FIR being II-C.R. No. 183 of 2017 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, District: Anand.

3. Heard, the learned senior counsel Mr. I. H. Syed, assisted by Mr. C. B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. J. Panchal, learned counsel for the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent – State.

4. The second respondent is the Vice Chancellor of the Sardar Patel University. He lodged a report with the police stating that on 22.12.2017 at 4:30 p.m. that the petitioners herein, who are four accused in the said case, came to his office and insisted him to disclose the names of the members of the Interview Board. When he stated that he would furnish the details later on that the petitioners got enraged and entered into verbal altercation with the second respondent. Thereafter, they left the office of the second respondent. It is further stated that when the second respondent was going away from his office to his house on that day after office hours, that the petitioners came in a car when he was on his way to the house and they tried to physically assault him. The people, who gathered there, came to his rescue. It is stated that after seeing the people who gathered, that the petitioners left the place and went away.

4.1 The said report was initially registered as a case in the above crime for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioners.

4.2 Again after four days from the date of the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer has filed a report before the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand for the addition of Sections 394, 353 and 452 of the IPC.

5. After the original FIR was lodged, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the said FIR. After the said report was filed for addition of the aforesaid sections of law, they sought amendment seeking quash of the said Addition Report also filed to add Sections 394, 353 and 452 IPC. This Court, by way interim order, has ordered stay of further proceedings in relation to the said Addition Report to add Sections 394, 353 and 452 of the IPC.

5.1 There was no stay granted in relation to the original FIR that was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. Therefore, the investigation went on and eventually, after completion of investigation, the police have filed Charge-sheet for the said offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the said offences and charges were also framed for the said offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The trial also commenced in the said case and it is stated that the trial is at the fag end of it.

5.2 As regards the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC are concerned, as the Charge-sheet was already filed and the trial Court has also framed charges and trial of the said case already commenced and as it is at the fag end of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the said case in relation to the said offences is to be decided by the trial Court. No case is made out so far as the said offences are concerned for quash of the FIR. More particularly, as noticed above, as trial has already commenced after framing of charges, the law has to take its own course insofar as the said offences are concerned.

6. As regards the Addition Report that is filed for addition of Sections 394, 353 and 45