The Court highlighted that FIRs can be quashed when filed with malice or to misuse the legal process, as evidenced by significant delays and lack of substantial allegations.

ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 145 of 2015 registered with Vadodara City Police Station, Vadodara for the commission of offence punishable under Section s 354 , 323, 294(B), 506(2) and 114 of the of the Indian Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. The learned advocate for the applicants submits that as per the allegations, the present applicants who are advocates on record in the maintenance petition for complainant’s husband, asked her to withdraw the maintenance petition while she was standing in Court premises. Further, the applicant no.1 pushed her and thereafter some altercation took place between the complainant and the applicants and present applicants gave her threat to upload some photographs on internet and thus, the F.I.R. came to be lodged. It is further submitted that since the applicants are advocates on record on behalf of her husband in Domestic Violence and maintenance petitions. She has filed this frivolous complaint against the applicants with a view to pressurize them. It is further submitted that approximately 64 advocates present in Court on that day gave their statements that no such incident had occurred on that day. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed present F.I.R. with a view to abuse the process of law and to cause harassment to present applicants, so that they retire from the cases of her husband. It is further submitted that complainant has also harassed other two advocates to retire from her husband’s case and they had left the suit of her husband because of her harassment caused to them. It is further submitted that the present complainant is habituated in filing such complaints along with her friend namely Manishaben Ghanshyambhai Fulbaje. It is also submitted that there was no case of maintenance application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.651 of 2013 before the learned Principal Judge, Mr. V.R.Dave, Family Court but it was pending before the learned Judge, Mr. J.J.Pandya, Family Court and the said case was notified at sr. no.18 in his Court. Copy of Board of both the Courts are annexed at Annexure-B ‘collectively’.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants further submits that there is a delay of 16 days in lodging the F.I.R. and no reasonable explaination has been given for the said delay and there is no recovery of any photographs from the present applicants. It is further submitted that the facts of the F.I.R. and chargesheet do not satisfy the ingrediants of Section 354 of the IPC. There is not a single allegation which outraged the modesty of women. In support of this, the learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhimjibhai Virjibhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat reported as 2015 JX (GUJ) 766 and Amankumar versus State of Haryana reported as 2004 (4) SCC 379. It is further submitted that the facts of the F.I.R and chargesheet do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506(2) of the IPC even. There is not even a single allegation which describes that any criminal intimidation was administered. It is nowhere recorded in the complaint that the present applicants have threatened the complainant to do any act which she is not legally b