JUDGMENT A.S. OKA, J. On the last date (i.e. on 11th December 2012), though the Petition was fully heard, we had granted time on the request made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third Respondent as the decision on the proposal for withdrawal of complaint made by the higher authority was awaited. The learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent has today stated that the higher authority has not taken any decision. Therefore, we proceed to deliver the judgment. 2. The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the First Information Report lodged at the instance of the third Respondent. The offence has been registered on 7th September 2006 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 353, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 39, 192 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 12B of the of Motor Vehicles Tax Act. 3. Before we consider the submissions, it will be necessary to make a reference to the allegations made in the complaint dated 7th September 2006 on the basis of which, the First Information Report has been registered. It is stated therein that the third Respondent was working as an Inspector with the Regional Transport Office, Mumbai (Central), Mumbai. He has stated that he received an information that a Toyoto Corolla Car bearing Registration No. MH-02-AL-12 was being used with number plate "Maharashtra-02 -AL-12". On 20th August 2006, when he was searching for that car, at about 9 a.m., he saw the said car parked inside the bungalow No. 113A in Sher-A-Punjab colony within the jurisdiction of Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai. He noticed that the gate was locked. He stated that he noticed from the gap in the gate of the bungalow that a cream coloured Toyoto Corolla car having a number plate in Marathi bearing "Maharashtra-02 AL-12" on front bumper was parked inside the compound of the bungalow. It is alleged that after verification from the Regional Transport Office, he confirmed that the said registration number was given to another vehicle viz. Maruti Zen in the year 2005. He stated that as he sought the help from Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai, the Sub Inspector of Police Shahid Rashid Siddiqui along with a Police Constable arrived at the spot. It is alleged that after verification from the Regional Transport Office, he confirmed that the said registration number was given to another vehicle viz. Maruti Zen in the year 2005. He stated that as he sought the help from Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai, the Sub Inspector of Police Shahid Rashid Siddiqui along with a Police Constable arrived at the spot. He stated that he informed the police officer that he was desirous of taking the possession of the said Toyoto car under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, he handed over a letter to the police officer requesting to break open the lock on the gate of the compound of the bungalow and hand over possession of the said car after drawing a panchanama. It is alleged that the Sub Inspector of Police made an inquiry and found that the owner of the bungalow was not available. Therefore, he called a key maker and after getting a duplicate key prepared, by using the same, the lock of the gate was opened. They entered the compound when they saw a cream coloured Toyoto Corolla Car inside the compound. It is stated that on the front bumper as also on rear side of the car, the number plates in Marathi displaying "Maharashtra-02-AL-12" were fixed, and in front side of the said Car, another Car (Maruti Suzuki Swift make) was standing. On the front side bumper of the said Car, on a red coloured paper, a registration number MH-04-Z-595 was written in English. It is stated that at that time, the first Petitioner who is stated to be an Advocate came there and stated that the bungalow was owned by the second Petitioner. He threatened the third Respondent by stating that he will drag him to the Court and tried to interfere with the official work. It is further alleged in the complaint that one woman came there who stated that the bungalow and the car was owned by the second Petitioner and that she is the mother of the second Petitioner. He stated that one Mohsin Ali came there. The third Respondent called upon him to produce the papers of Toyoto Corolla Car and the key thereof. He stated that he was not possessing the papers and the key of the car. He stated that one Mohsin Ali came there. The third Respondent called upon him to produce the papers of Toyoto Corolla Car and the key thereof. He stated that he was not possessing the papers and the key of the car. The third Respondent further stated that by removing a quarter glass of the car, he himself opened the car and found that there were no papers inside the car. Therefore, he took over the possession of the car and detained the same in the Regional Transport Office. The First Information Report of the said incident of 20th August 2006 was registered on the basis of the complaint dated 7th September 2006 against the present Petitioners. 4. Various submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The first submission is that the second Petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 in this Court for challenging the action of the third Respondent and the police of entering the private property and of illegally taking over the custody of the car on 20th August 2006. It is pointed out that the Advocate's notice of the Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 was served to the State Government as well as to the third Respondent on 2nd September 2006. It is pointed out that the said Petition came up before this Court on 4th September 2006 when the State was represented by the learned APP and notice was issued to the Respondents by the Court on that date. His submission is that apart from the fact that the action of entering the private property of the second Petitioner by breaking open the lock was patently illegal, after knowing about the filing of the Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006, on 7th September 2006, the third Respondent belatedly filed a complaint of the incident of 20th August 2006. He submitted that filing of such complaint was as a counter-blast to the said earlier Petition filed by the second Petitioner and the action is nothing but a mala fide action. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned First Information Report was registered even against the first Petitioner who is a practicing Advocate. He submitted that filing of such complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law with a view to cover up the action of illegally taking over possession of the said car. 5. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned First Information Report was registered even against the first Petitioner who is a practicing Advocate. He submitted that filing of such complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law with a view to cover up the action of illegally taking over possession of the said car. 5. The learned APP supported the action of registration of the First Information Report. We have already noted in our order dated 11th December 2012 that when earlier this Petition was heard, the learned counsel appearing for the third Petitioner was not present. We have already recorded in the said order that on 7th December 2012, the learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent on instructions stated before the Court that the lock on the gate of the compound of the private property could not have been opened by the third Respondent by preparing a duplicate key and the custody of the vehicle parked inside the compound could not have been taken. In fact, the third Respondent wrote a letter dated 10th December 2012 to the higher officer viz. Regional Transport Commissioner, seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. A copy of the said letter has been placed on record of this Petition. Resumed today 21st December 2012. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to our judgment dated 5th December 2012 delivered in companion Criminal Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006. In the said Judgment, this Court dealt with the action of the third Respondent along with the concerned police officer (Shri Shahid Rashid Siddique) of opening the lock on the gate of Private property and thereafter towing away the car. In Paragraph 8 of the said Judgment, we have held thus:- "8. Thus, going by what is recorded in the communication of the Respondent No. 7 and what is set out in the panchanama, it is obvious that the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 without following due process of law entered the compound of the bungalow of the Petitioner after opening the lock by getting a duplicate key prepared. Without following due process of law the Respondent No. 8 entered the Petitioner's property took over the possession of the car and handed over the same to the Respondent No. 7. Therefore, the action of Respondent Nos. Without following due process of law the Respondent No. 8 entered the Petitioner's property took over the possession of the car and handed over the same to the Respondent No. 7. Therefore, the action of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 of entering the property by opening the lock and by taking away the said car is illegal. The action cannot be supported by any provision of law. The adjudication of the allegation that a number plate was fixed on the car by the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 with a view to fabricate evidence against the Petitioner will involve disputed questions of fact. Therefore, we are not recording any finding on this aspect". (underline added) 7. We may note here that the Respondent No. 7 in the said Writ Petition is the Respondent No. 3 herein and the Respondent No. 8 is the concerned police officer. Thus, there is already a concluded finding as regards illegality of the action on the part of the third Respondent on 20th August 2006. 8. We have already pointed out that the First Information Report was lodged by the third Respondent only after service of notice of criminal Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 to him and only after this Court issued notice on the said Petition after hearing the learned APP. The first Petitioner who is an Advocate who purportedly represented the second Petitioner has admittedly nothing to do with the said Car which was owned by the second Petitioner. 9. It is obvious that in view of the findings which we have recorded in the companion petition that very the entry of the third Respondent and the concerned police officer in the compound was itself illegal, the offences under the Indian Penal Code which are alleged against the Petitioners cannot be made out. Moreover, after having themselves committed an illegality, the act of filing the complaint and getting the First Information Report registered belatedly after the service of the notice of the companion Petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law on the part of the third Respondent as well as on the part of the concerned officer of the police. The first information report was belatedly registered 18 days after the incident as a counter blast to the Writ Petition filed by the second Petitioner herein. The first information report was belatedly registered 18 days after the incident as a counter blast to the Writ Petition filed by the second Petitioner herein. We may note that during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners produced before us for our perusal an office copy of the advocate's notice in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 which shows service of notice on the third Respondent as well as on the office of the Regional Transport Office, Mumbai (Central), on 2nd September 2006. The Transport Commissioner was served with the notice on 3rd September 2006. It is obvious that only after a grievance was made by filing a companion Petition about the illegality of the action of the third Respondent on 20th August 2006, the First Information Report was lodged. 10. As this is a case of abuse of process of law, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, we must record here that though belatedly, the third Respondent certainly made an attempt to make amends by submitting a proposal to the Transport Commissioner seeking permission to withdraw the First Information Report. A copy of the said proposal dated 10th December 2012 is placed on record. In the said letter, the third Respondent has stated that the requisite amount has been recovered as regards the vehicle in dispute and there is no loss of revenue to the State Government. It is stated that the vehicle has been authentically registered as MH-02-AU-3010 with effect from 30th September 2006. In view of what is stated in the said letter, now no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings initiated for the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Petition must succeed. As far as the costs are concerned, considering the amends belatedly made by the third Respondent, we are not passing any order of costs. 12. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER: Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Petition allowed.