ORDER

Heard finally.

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case diary is not available, however, Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vaibhv Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that it is a case for quashing the FIR, and he would be able to demonstrate from the FIR itself that it is liable to be quashed. Thus, the matter is heard finally at the insistence of the learned senior counsel.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 23.1.2021 lodged at Crime No.55/2021 under section 380 and 454 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that it has been lodged falsely at the instance of respondent No.2, the ex-tenant of the petitioner.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner by respondent No.2 Jethmal Lunkaran Soni on 23/01/2021, at 20:47 hours, in respect of an incident of theft which took place between 21.10.2020 to 25.10.20. Thus, the FIR admittedly has been lodged after around 3 months by the complainant Jethmal Lunkaran Soni by filing a written complaint alleging that his landlord Girish Mehta has taken illegal possession of the shop which is situated at House No.109-A, Station Road, Ratlam after breaking the lock despite the Court order. In this FIR, the complainant has also stated that in respect of the aforesaid shop, the other landlord Harshad Mehta and others have also filed a case against him for eviction, in which, the Court has already granted an injunction order directing the parties to maintain status quo, and despite the aforesaid order, in the absence of the complainant, the petitioner Girish Mehta around 3-4 days ago has taken possession of the shop and has also removed certain articles.

4. After the aforesaid FIR was filed, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before this Court by filing M.Cr.C. No.9525/2021, which was opposed not only by the complainant Jethmal Soni but also by the son and wife of the deceased brother of the petitioner Utpal S/o Kishore Mehta and Smt. Bharti W/o Kishore Mehta. The aforesaid application for anticipatory bail was allowed by this Court vide its detailed order dated 9.3.2021, and also imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the objectors Utpal and Smt. Bharti Mehta. The aforesaid order dated 9.3.2021 was challenged by the objectors Utpal and Smt. Bharti Mehta before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4590/2021, and the Supreme Court, vide its order dated 4.10.2021 has although affirmed the order of bail of this Court, although the cost imposed was waived.

5. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and in support of his submissions, he has relied upon as many as 12 documents filed along with this petition itself, whereas the objectors Utpal and Smt. Bharti Mehta who are the son and wife of the petitioner’s brother Late Kishore Mehta, have also filed their objections in writing through a power of attorney holder as both of whom are the residents of San Jose, California (USA), and the reply to the aforesaid objection has also been filed by the petitioner on 3.3.2021, as also the additional reply on 7.4.2021, along with a copy of the order passed by this Court in bail application M.Cr.C. No.9525/2021 dated 9.3.2021, and thereafter yet another detailed objection was again filed by Utpal and Smt. Bharti Mehta on 10.6.2021, through their advocate Rishi Agrawal, again filing certain documents, a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4590/2021 arising out of the bail application M.Cr.C. No.9525/2021 has also been filed, and thereafter the respondent No.2 complainant who is the tenant in the petitioner’s house has also filed his objection running into 16 pages, with additional docume