1. - This is a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 255/2012 dated 6.6.2012 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District-Barmer. The F.I.R. has been registered against the present petitioners for offences under Sections 384, 385 and 500 I.P.C.

2. It is contended that F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner by Mewa Ram Jain, Local M.L.A., Barmer, who is a powerful politician. The said F.I.R. is misuse of the process of law, which was filed only to exert political influence on police machinery. The complainant himself is involved in number of irregularities and corruption cases and various F.I.Rs. have been registered against him in the past. It is further stated that the said F.I.R. has been filed with mala fide intention. The petitioner No. 1 has filed D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 9730/2011 (Mahaveer Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Court wherein the complainant and his associates are impleaded as respondents. Further, petitioner No. 1 is Editor-cum-Publisher of daily News Paper "Maru Lehar" and he was instrumental in exposing number of corruption cases and in I some of those cases, respondent No. 3 is involved. Thus, out of vengeance and in order to escape from criminal liability and under political vendetta, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent No. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , to state that an F.I.R. registered due to mala fide should be quashed.

3. it is further contended that the allegations are false on the face of it. As per the F.I.R., the petitioners had demanded money and threatened that in case the said money was not delivered, he would publish the news item against the complainant. The news item stood already published in the daily news paper "Maru Lehar" on 4.6.2012. Thus, demanding any money after the publication of the said news item, does not arise. Moreover, the said news was carried out by various news papers and not by the news paper of the petitioner alone.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised yet another argument. It was submitted that no offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is made out. For making out an offence under Section 384 I.P.C., it was necessary that property, valuable security etc. should stand delivered to the accused in pursuance to the threat by the accused. In the present case, no valuable security, money etc. was passed on to the accused.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the same submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and as such the petitioner is rendered infractuous. Further, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.1.2015 has already dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner c and number of F.I.Rs. are registered against the petitioners for similar offence; f by various individuals.

6. For the proper adjudication of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the t wordings of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. reads as under:-

"fuosnu gS fd eSokjke tSu fo/kk;d ckMesj dk ;g gS fd egkohj tSu uked i=dkj tks e:ygj ds uke ls lekpkj i= tks/kiqj o ckMesj ls izdkf'kr djrk gS egkohj tSu vius v[kckjksa esa jktuhftKksa o ftykf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vuki'kuki >wBh [kcjsa izdkf'kr djds iSls ,saBrk jgrk gSA blds fo:) /kks[kk/kM+h] ekugkfu] ,uMhih,l ,DV ds rgr eqdnesa pys gSaA orZeku esa dbZ izdj.k yfEcr gSaA egkohj tSu esjs o esjs ifjokj ds ckjs esa >wBh Hkzked [kcjsa Nkirs jgrs gSaA vkSj /kefd;ka nsrk jgrk gS fd iSls nks ojuk rqEgkjh izfr"Bk /kwy esa feyk nwaxkA fd bl ekg bf.M;k VqMs uked if=dk esa ,d [kcj izdkf'kr gqbZ Fkh ftlesa ckMesj esa dkaxzsl usrk dh v'yhy lhMh gksus dk nkok fd;k Fkk ekgohj tSu us bl bafM;k VqMs esa izdkf'kr [kcj dk vk/kkj cukdj vius lkekpkj i= e:ygj esa igys rks ;g Nkik fd ckM+esj ds dkaxzslh usrk dh v'yhy lhMh vkus okyh gS fQj eq>s o esjs HkkbZ ls txnh'k [k=h ,o