ORAL ORDER

1. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed seeking quash of FIR No.B- 11191042200024 of 2020 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad City, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 294 (1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Heard Mr.Virat Popat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Hardik Soni, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr.K.V.Shelat, learned counsel for the second respondent-

defacto complainant.

3. The facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell may be stated as follows:-

3.1 The defacto complainant is the power of attorney holder in respect of the land in question said to have been executed by its original owner. It is stated that, on 17.7.2019, when the defacto complainant reached the said land and parked his four wheeler in the said land, accused no.4, who is the watchman engaged by the petitioners herein, who are accused nos.1 and 2, objected the complainant for parking his four wheeler in the said land and stated that if he parks the vehicle in the said land that the petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2, would kill him.

3.2 Thereafter, on 12.1.2020, the defacto complainant has lodged a report with the police and the said report is registered as FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 294 (1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2 and also against two other persons, who are accused nos.3 and 4.

3.3 The petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2, sought quash of the said FIR. Accused nos.3 and 4 did not seek quash of the FIR. In fact, as per the submissions made by learned APP, on instructions, that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed against accused nos.3 and 4. Accused no.3 is the transporter engaged by accused nos.1 and

2 for the purpose of transporting construction material. As notices supra, accused no.4 is a watchman engaged by accused nos.1 and 2. Charge-sheet against present petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2, could not be filed as there was an interim order not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

3.4 The petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2, sought quash of the FIR on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not present at the scene of offence when the alleged incident took place and that the alleged threat is also given only by accused no.4-watchman. Therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 294 (1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. So, it is prayed to quash the said FIR against the petitioners as allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against them would amount to abuse of process of Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the original owner of the said land sold away the same to another person by name Girish Patel long back on 17.9.1999 and he, in turn, sold away said land to another person and, thereafter, the present petitioners, who are accused no.1 and 2, entered into an Agreement to Sell with present owner of the said land by name Dipak Shah and Development Agreement was also executed in their favour and they have been constructing apartments in the said land. He further contends that the defacto complainant, who is claiming to be the power of attorney holder from the erstwhile owner of the said land is claiming right over the said land and there is civil dispute pending in the Civil Court relating to said claim between both the parties and, in the said circumstances, present case is foisted against the petitioners.

4.1 He then contends that, even as per the allegations set out in the FIR, there is absolutely no allegation against t