ORAL ORDER

Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.

[1.0] By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

“(B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 25.10.2020 registered vide CR No.I- 11215007200398/2020 for the offences alleged to have been committed and punishable under Sections 307, 143, 148, 148, 149, 504 and 506(2) of IPC read with section 135 of Gujarat Police Act with Borsad Rural Police Station, District Anand and all consequent proceedings arising there from against the petitioners in the interest of justice;”

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth for the petitioners, learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Ms. Dixa Pandya for respondent No.2 – original complainant.

[3.0] It is the case of the petitioners that at the instance of respondent No.2, impugned FIR came to be filed with Borsad Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 505, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short “IPC”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act in all against 7 accused persons, wherein it is alleged that when respondent No.2 herein – original complainant was ploughing his land with the help of tractor, accused No.1 had come and started shouting on the complainant and asked him to leave and then, accused No.1 brought an axe and gave a blow on the head of complainant however, the complainant resisted the law and the axe was hit on the right hand of the complainant and he started bleeding from the palm and then other accused persons came and started hurling abusive language and then, while going away, accused No.1 administered threat of dire consequences to the complainant. It is under these circumstances that the impugned FIR came to be filed.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute pertaining to land between the family members gave rise to the present incident wherein present petitioners are falsely enroped and even a cross-complaint is filed. Further, present petitioners reached the place of incident after the occurrence of incident and there is no specific role attributed to the present petitioners. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition.

[5.0] Learned APP has opposed the present petition and submitted that this is not a case where present petitioners came after the incident was over. There is a dispute between the parties pertaining to land and even cross-complaint is filed and in the cross-complaint proceedings qua present respondent No.2 are going on. Hence, he has requested not to exercise the powers of quashing in the present case as the arguments and grounds raised in the petition amount to defence and is required to be adjudicated at the time of trial. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present petition.

[6.0] Learned advocate for respondent No.2 – original complainant has submitted that while respondent No.2 was ploughing the field, at that time accused No.1 came and shouted and all accused by forming unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention they hurled abusive language and accused No.1 came with axe and administered threat and then he has made an assault in which respondent No.2 sustained injury and the witnesses who intervened also sustained injury. Further, the petitioners herein were present at the time of incident and were part of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object they had participated in the offence and have also hurled abusive language. Considering the aforesaid fact, she has requested that the present petitioners are named in the complaint and proceedings qua cross-case filed at the instance of accused No.1 against present complainant is going on wherein evidence is also recorded and presence of petitioners at the time and place of incident is not in dispute. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present petit