ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, by way of present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the FIR being C.R.No.11193027220325 of 2022 registered with Khambha Police Station, District – Amreli for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.

2. The crux of the complainant as per the FIR is that his son Sanjay got married with Hetal daughter of Bharatbhai Padsala. It is alleged further that his son Sanjay had financially helped Bharatbhai Padsala in past but, in the year 2017, his son incurred loss in the business and thereby, asked Bharatbhai Padsala to return the money which he advanced. Therefore, Bharatbhai Padsala has instigated his daughter Hetal and got created dispute between Sanjay and Hetal. It is further alleged that Hetal instituted divorce petition in the court of Surat, in which complainant’s son is objecting and not giving divorce. Therefore, it is alleged that Bharatbhai has, with a view to pressurize, sent one unknown person on 22.4.2022, who administered threats to the complainant and asked the complainant to insist his son Sanjay to cooperate in the divorce proceedings pending in the Surat court. It is further alleged that again on 1.5.2022, 3 unknown persons including the person who came on 22.4.2022, came at the instance of Bharatbhai Padsala and again administered threats.

3. I have heard Mr.R.B. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent – State.

4. Mr.R.B.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the FIR is bogus and there is no allegation whatsoever in nature against the present petitioner. Mr.Soni further submitted that as per the version of FIR, 3 unknown persons visited the field of the complainant and administered the threats. The presence of the present petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR. According to Mr.Soni, therefore, the allegations against the present petitioner is vague and general in nature and made with a view to implicate in a false case. Learned counsel further submitted that lodgment of FIR is a counter blast to the complaint filed by Hetalben, wherein police has started preliminary investigation.

4.1 By making above submissions, Mr.Soni urged this Court that present FIR is sheer misuse of process of law and thereby, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr.Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State, vehemently opposed the present petition, contending that the FIR discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the same may not be quashed. Mr.Trivedi further submitted that bare reading of the FIR would reveal that the name of the present petitioner is also clearly mentioned along with 3 unidentified persons and in that event, Mr.Trivedi submitted, at this stage quashing of FIR will be too premature. Mr.Trivedi further submitted that FIR is lodged on 3.5.2022 and the present petition is filed on 12.5.2022 i.e. in sheer haste. Learned APP, lastly, submitted that no exceptional case is made out which warrants this Court to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5.1 By making above submissions, Mr.Trivedi urged this Court to dismiss the present petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record in detail. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties, except what are stated herein-above.

7. While deciding the present case, it would be profitable to refer to the celebrated judgments of the Apex Court, wherein the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is explained. It would be apt to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR SC 2021 1918, in which the Apex Court has held as under :

“10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the P