YASHPALSINH KARANSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even if I accept the case as it is or believe the same to be true, in my view, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of robbery punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is spelt out. Having regard to the genesis of the grievance and the allegations in the FIR, it can not be said that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to conduct robbery. The incident occurred on account of old rivalry which resulted in some scuffle.

(2.) RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf the respondent no. 1 - State of Gujarat. Mr. Hardeep L. Mahida, the learned advocate has entered appearance and waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 2 - original complainant.

(3.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report being CR I- No. 43 of 2017 registered with the Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, District: Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 394 , 323 , 504 , 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1) (5)(r) (s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the G.P. Act, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute.