SONI DINESHKUMAR DAHYALAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks to invoke inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashment of the FIR being I.CR. No. 145 of 2012 registered with Kheralu Police Station, Visnagar, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Ss. 323 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to file present application are that, the applicant being a practicing Advocate has been charged with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation. On 14/10/2012, he along with his client Chaudhari Mahesh Dungarbhai went Kheralu Police Station, for registration of the FIR against one Savitaben Virsangbhai and her family members, as scuffle took place amongst the parties with respect to parking of the vehicle. It is alleged that, when both the parties arrived at the police station, the applicant herein being an Advocate restrain the Police Station Officer of the Kheralu, in registering the offence against the client of the applicant. The PSO one Mr. Arjunsing Rataji had lodged an FIR under Sec. 188 of the IPC against the applicant herein and on the same day, second FIR was being lodged against the applicant and his clients alleging that, the complainant was threatened that she will be killed by the clients of the applicant and accordingly, the aforesaid FIR for the offences as referred above registered against the applicant and two other persons.

(3.) Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicant herein submitted that, at the instance of PSO Arjunsing Rataji, the applicant herein was falsely arraigned as an accused in two offences and averments made in the FIR are inherently improbable as nothing being alleged against the applicant that he acted in a manner which can provoke breach of the peace or threatened the complainant. He would urge that, the allegations made in the FIR if they are taken at their face value as it is, do not prima-facie constitute an offence punishable under Ss. 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that, the applicant herein being an advocate of his client, remained present at the Kheralu Police Station and has nothing to do with the dispute arose between the complainant and the persons named in the FIR. This is a second FIR lodged against the applicant herein, which is evident that, the PSO, who having grudged against the applicant herein, registered an FIR, by using the name of the complainant Savitaben.