High courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process. Such powers are exercised when the complaint fails to establish the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, ensuring that the criminal justice system is not utilized for harassment or personal vendetta.

JUDGMENT :

P. M. Raval, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) is preferred praying to quash the FIR being C.R. No. II-64 of 2015, lodged before Vansda Police Station, Dist.: Navsari for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.08.2015 at about 6:45 p.m. when de facto complainant was at his tea stall, accused persons namely Kamshibhai Puniyabhai, Mohammad Ali and Sanjaygiri Narendragiri Goswami allegedly rushed there in a black coloured Toyota Qualis car and asked as to why the de facto complainant fenced and demarcated the land to which, the de facto complainant replied that he had taken the said land on lease for three years from one Bhartiben Narendrabhai and had got levelled and demarcated the land and also cultivated the same. Upon such reply, they started abusing the de facto complainant and in a while, other accused persons namely Dhiren Kantilal Solanki and Devendrabhai Anantbhai Kanojiya getting enraged, also abused the de facto complainant and threatened to kill if the de facto complainant would cultivate the land. The alleged incident occurred in presence of some witnesses. Thus, for the said facts, FIR in question came to be registered.

3. Heard, learned advocate for the applicants who are original accused Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State.

3.1 Gist of arguments of the learned advocate for the applicants is that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the present applicants are not at all satisfied. He would submit that complainant having acted as an agent of one Bhartiben Narendbhai who is having old animosity with the original accused No. 1, has filed the impugned FIR in which, implication of the present applicants is manifestly falls and only because of having good terms with the original accused No. 1.

3.2 It is submitted that even otherwise, if the entire case of the de facto complainant is taken as true, then too, the FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence of criminal intimidation and/or intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and that of causing damage to any property.

3.3 He further vehemently argued that the incident in question is of 01.08.2015, whereas, the FIR is filed only on 23.08.2015 i.e. after more than 22 days of occurrence of alleged incident, for which, while no plausible explanation is forthcoming on record, it clearly substantiates the say of the applicants that the FIR in question is a got up one.

3.4 Making such submissions, it is urged that the present FIR and the consequential proceedings qua the applicants may be quashed and set aside as no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants.

3.5 In support, the learned advocate for the applicants has relied on decisions of the Apex Court in i) Vikram Johar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, MANU/SC/0608/2019 : (2019) 14 SCC 207 and in ii) Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. & Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624.

4. As against that, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant would submit that the incident in question had occurred in presence of the witnesses and if their statements are recorded, truth may come out. He submitted that it is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia and when the investigation is yet to be concluded and when a strong case is made out against the applicants,