JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed seeking quashment of the FIR being I-C.R. No.1 of 2017 registered with Mendarda Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein two unknown Forest OfÏcers, who are the present applicants, have been arraigned as accused.

2. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the present applicants, who were serving as Beat Guards (Class- III) at Kadeli Beat and Pidipat-I Beat of Sasan Gir Sanctuary and National Park for about six years prior to the lodging of the FIR, were on duty on 13.01.2016. During the course of their duty, they allegedly intercepted an illegal entry into the restricted forest area. While restraining the complainant from entering the said area, a quarrel ensued, and it is alleged that an assault was committed using an axe. The said incident resulted in the registration of the impugned FIR, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Dr.Abhisst Thaker for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Nabil Bloch for the complainant and the learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Thaker submits that since the complainant had entered into a restricted forest area, a forest offence came to be registered under Section 26(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on 13.01.2017, wherein it is specifically stated that the offence pertains to unauthorized entry into the Endhaniya Forest Area. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Thakker that the present applicants had also lodged an FIR against the complainant being I-C.R. No.2 of 2017, which ultimately resulted in acquittal by the learned trial Court. Learned advocate Mr. Thakker submits that the applicants, being public servants, are protected under Section 60 of the Forest Act, and have been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR. It is contended that since the applicants were discharging their ofÏcial duties at the relevant time, the registration of the FIR is nothing but an attempt to pressurize and demoralize the forest ofÏcers in the discharge of their duties. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Thakker that there is no personal enmity between the complainant and the applicants, and therefore the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and the present application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Bloch appearing for the complainant submits that the investigation has not been carried out and no material has yet been collected, and therefore any interference at this stage would be premature. In that background, it is submitted that the present application deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned APP Mr. Raval has supported the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Bloch appearing for the complainant.

7. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are reproduced hereinbelow:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(i) Where the allegations mad