ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Today, learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicants places on record the death certificate of original accused no.4 Jagdish Lalji Solanki, who is petitioner no.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7938 of 2016, which is taken on record. Considering the death certificate mentioned above, the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 7938 of 2016 stands abated qua the original accused no.4-the petitioner no.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7938 of 2016.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek to invoke the inherent powers of this court praying to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. I-75/2016 registered before A Division Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The short facts as narrated in the FIR are to the effect that the complainant resides with his family at Khothariya naka chawk and is owning one shop which is rented on 31.01.1985 in favour of Harshadkumar Prabhudas for the purpose of carrying on Optical business and rent note thereof was also executed and the business in the name of Diamond Optical shop was operated by Harshadkumar. It is further the case of the informant that since few months, Harshadbhai was not found and the complainant as and when he went to inquire, since there were arrears of rent and at that time, he found one person namely Jagdish seating in the shop and on asking him with regards to Harshadkumar stated that his brother in law Arvind has taken possession of the shop and started using abusive words. Subsequently, when complainant went home, Hussainbhai informed that the said shop was given to him by Jagdish. It is also stated in the FIR that Jagdish had informed that the shop was taken over by Arvind, Bharat Pala and Afzal. It is further stated in the FIR that on 10.03.2016, Bharat Pala came to the office of the complainant and informed that the shop in the name of Diamond Optical was taken over from Harshadbhai by Bharatbhai and Arvindbhai and requested to transfer the rent note in their favour, failing which, a threat was administered to face serious consequences. It is also narrated in the FIR that conversation recorded in the mobile is also with him. Thereafter, the complainant was invited to the office of Bharatbhai. The case of the informant that after a day or two, Afzalbhai informed the complainant that the key of the shop and the possession is with him, and was threatened not to make any inquiry about the shop and accordingly, the complaint came to be filed alleging the offence punishable under Sections 409, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned advocate Mr Mahesh Poojara for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that no case is made out from the reading of the entire FIR except for bare statements of the threatening the complainant and there is no averments as to how the present petitioners intended to cause the alarm to the complainant and under circumstances has argued to quash the present complaint.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants further draws attention of this court towards Civil Misc. Appeal No. 104 of 2016 whereby, the Ex. 5 which was initially rejected by the trial court came to be allowed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Rajkot vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 and thus, argued that the complainant is trying to give criminal colour to ci