Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Yaswantsinh Shakarsinh Chauhan along with four others are before this Court with the prayer that: “7(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this application and be further pleased to pass appropriate orders and/or directions to quash and set aside the impugned criminal complaint being C.R.No.I-407 of 2008 dated 28.9.2008 filed by the opponent No. 2 herein with the Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara (Annexure-A)” 2. Learned advocate, Mr. R.D. Dave, for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the said FIR and reading of this FIR makes it very interesting discloser of facts. 3. The complainant is an advocate and practicing at Vadodara. His brother is an advocate practicing in High Court of Gujarat and he is also ‘legal adviser’ of Adani Group. One may wonder as to what is the importance of these facts. The importance of these facts is that there is a deliberate, well planned, well designed attempt on the part of the complainant to implicate the present applicants in the aforesaid complaint and therefore, this Court has to make these observations. 4. It is stated that the property was purchased on 25.7.2008 situated in Nirnaynagar Society in Manjalpur Area, Vadodara. The complainant purchased 3 blocks bearing Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Block No. 7 was purchased in the name of sister, namely, Sheetal. The Block No. 8 was purchased in the name of the complainant himself and Block No. 9 was purchased in the name of his brother’s wife, namely, Namrataben. Again, the Court cannot have any objection to purchase of these properties, purchased by the family members of the applicant. 5. What is important is that, it is alleged that on 17.9.2008, the applicant went to the said properties (The complaint is filed only on 28.9.2008 wherein not a word is mentioned in the complaint explaining the late filing of FIR. In this background, the qualification and profession of the complainant and his brother, becomes important). On 17.9.2008, it is alleged in the FIR that, Applicants Nos. 1 to 3 reached the site (at the property in question) and it is stated that thereafter, one Sanjay Hirubhai Patel who is Applicant No. 4 herein and one Ankit Rahabhai Rathod, the Applicant No. 5 also reached the site. On 17.9.2008, it is alleged in the FIR that, Applicants Nos. 1 to 3 reached the site (at the property in question) and it is stated that thereafter, one Sanjay Hirubhai Patel who is Applicant No. 4 herein and one Ankit Rahabhai Rathod, the Applicant No. 5 also reached the site. It is stated that ‘they were having JCB Machines with them’ as if JCB Machine was carried by them like a Mobile Phone. It is also stated that they were having Tractor with them. Be that as it may. Registration Number of JCB Machines, Tractor and 5 Motor Cycles are given. Meaning thereby, 5 applicants with JCB Machines, Tractor and 5 Motor Cycles reached the place. 6. What follows is important. The applicant was in a ‘Sakshibhav’ and therefore, without disturbing the applicants kept on witnessing their acts of mischief (as alleged in the FIR) defined under Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code. If it is true, the complainant deserves the felicitation that he being an ideal, peace loving citizen. A person is able to witness the property being demolished by JCB Machines and the debris being loaded in a Tractor. Thereafter, 5 persons walking away with debris which is claimed to be of Rs. 15,000/-. That being so, the debris must be of considerable quantity. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicants took away the iron roads. The Court is not going into the question of debris which is worth Rs. 15,000/- which could have been loaded in one single tractor. The FIR is silent on the point as to how long this operation of demolition continued? But one thing is certain that for that period the applicant could maintain his ‘Sakshibhav’. Not only that complainant could remain INDIFFERENT from the date of occurrence i.e. 17.9.2008 till 27.9.2008. It is only on 28.9.2008, he deemed it proper to file a complaint. 7. On bare perusal of FIR, this Court has no hesitation in observing that, this is nothing but a clear misuse of law more particularly, by resorting to criminal law and criminal prosecution. This Court has not come across a person like the complainant who is able to witness the demolition of his properties loading of debris in tractor, taking away the same worth Rs. 15,000/- and then, sitting tight over this issue for about 11 days. 8. Learned advocate, Mr. This Court has not come across a person like the complainant who is able to witness the demolition of his properties loading of debris in tractor, taking away the same worth Rs. 15,000/- and then, sitting tight over this issue for about 11 days. 8. Learned advocate, Mr. P.P. Majmudar, strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1157 of 2012 and other matters dated 19.9.2013. A copy of which is made available for perusal of this Court. Learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to Paras 9.1, 9.2 and other relevant paragraphs along with Paras 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4; wherein, the brother Judge has referred and considered various decisions of the Hon’ble the Apex Court. 9. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that if on bare reading of FIR, offences are disclosed then the Court should be slow enough to interfere with such FIR and for that reason, the investigation of that FIR must be allowed to see that the criminal law operates. 10. The learned advocate for the complainant invited the attention of the Court to observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa vs. Sarojkumar Sahoo reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 , which is referred to by brother Judge in Para 9.1, 9.2 of that judgment quoted with Para-11. The said paragraphs are quoted for ready perusal: 9.1 Observation by Hon’ble Apex Court in certain decisions provide guidelines on this count. Hence, it will be appropriate to take into consideration observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in case between State of Orissa vs. Sarojkumar Sahoo [ (2005) 13 SCC 540 ] wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that: “11. ... ... ... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, [1990] Supp SCC 686, State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR (1996) SC 309, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995] 6 SCC 194, State of Kerala vs. O.C. Kuttan, AIR (1999) SC 1044, State of U.P. vs. O.P. Sharma, [1996] 7 SCC 705, Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, [1997] 2 SCC 397, Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR (1996) SC 2983 and Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhil, [1999] 3 SCC 259). “ (Emphasis supplied) 9.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court has always put a word of caution with regard to any intervention or interference in the process of investigation. In this regard reference may be made to the observations of the Honble Apex Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & anr. vs. State of Andra Pradesh and anr. ( AIR 2008 SC 787 ) which read thus: In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. From the material available on record of present case, it emerges that before the investigation gets concluded and before the investigation officer could file appropriate report upon conclusion of investigation, the petitioners have preferred present petition and prayed that the investigation may be terminated”. (Emphasis supplied). 11. The learned advocate for the complainant was right in emphasizing the observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court that the ‘mala-fides of the informant’ would be of secondary importance and also ‘mala-fides against the informant are of no consequences’ and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. 12. (Emphasis supplied). 11. The learned advocate for the complainant was right in emphasizing the observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court that the ‘mala-fides of the informant’ would be of secondary importance and also ‘mala-fides against the informant are of no consequences’ and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. 12. This Court is conscious of the fact that the mala fides alone cannot be the basis of quashing the complaint but when at a first brush with all possible humility at command, the Court comes to the conclusion that, ‘the FIR is nothing else but concocted, fabricated and got up one and is filed taking advantage of the profession in which the complainant was (Legal Profession) and also taking advantage of his brother being in the same profession being advocate practicing in the High Court and having status of legal adviser of Adani Group’, the same must be quashed. This Court is of the opinion that the Court will be failing in its duty if that is not done and investigation which deserves to be quashed at the first sight is allowed. 13. During the midst of argument, learned advocate for the complainant submitted that while admitting this matter, this Court on 27.11.2008 did not grant stay against the investigation and therefore, the Court may inquire as to what is the outcome of the investigation because presumably during these 5 years, the investigation must have been over. This submission is made presumably without being conscious of an order passed by this Court on 23.9.2013 which reads as under: “Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate for the applicants seeks time to bring on record ‘C’ Summary Report filed by the Investigating Officer and papers of Civil Suit filed by Respondent No. 1. Hence, adjourned”. We are on 4th February, 2014. 14. During this time, at-least, the learned advocate for the complainant could have obtained those papers and produced before this Court if at all, he wanted to rely upon the same. 15. On careful consideration of the facts of the case and on careful consideration of the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for this Court to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 16. In the result, the complaint is quashed. 15. On careful consideration of the facts of the case and on careful consideration of the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for this Court to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 16. In the result, the complaint is quashed. The Court restrains itself from imposing any cost on the complainant for having filed such a complaint which in the opinion of this Court is outright in act of abuse of process of law. 17. At this juncture, learned advocate for the complainant requested that the strong observations made by this Court are likely to hamper the outcome of civil proceedings filed by the complainant and therefore, he requested that it may be clarified that these observation must not influence the learned Judge deciding the civil dispute between the parties. 18. The request is found reasonable. 19. Hence, it is made clear that the learned Judge who is deciding the civil dispute between the parties shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. 20. Rule is made absolute with no order as to cost.