JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C” for short), the applicant-original accused has sought quashment of the FIR, being CR.No.-II No. 3037 of 2013 lodged on 2nd March 2013 before Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 294 (C) and 223 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are – respondent no.2-org. complainant, when was arrested and in custody of Police at Shahibaug Police Station in connection with FIR which was lodged against him and two others for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 114 IPC, being C.R No. I-13 of 2013 on 23rd February 2013, during his custody was slapped by some persons who came alongwith his daughter-in-law, when the complainant was standing on the backside lobby of the Shahibaug Police Station. According to the complainant, the said unknown person who accompanied his daughter-in-law is the applicant herein. Pursuant to the said incident, the respondent no.2 herein lodged an FIR, being C.R No. II- 3037 of 2013 before Shahibaug Police Station on 2nd March 2013 against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 294 (C) and 223 IPC. Apropos the said complaint, applicant has been summoned on 31st March 2013 by the Police Inspector, Shahibaug Police Station under Section 160 Cr.P.C to appear before him on 2nd April 2013. Hence, the present application seeking quashment of FIR as well as summons issued u/s. 160 CrPC. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwalla appearing for the applicant; learned A.P.P. Mr. KL Pandya for the respondent no.1-State and Mr. Jayesh A. Kotecha, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2. 4. It was vehemently argued by learned advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwalla appearing for the applicant that the respondent no. 2 has lodged a false complaint against the applicant, as he is an advocate of his client-Vaibhavi Jayesh Panchal. He has further argued that on 20th January 2013, his client-Vaibhavi J. Panchal had lodged a complaint before Shahibaug Police Station, being C.R No. I-13 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 114 IPC and for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against three accused viz., Jayesh Bharatbhai Panchal (Husband); Taraben Bharatbhai Panchal (mother-in-law) and Bharatbhai Kalidas Panchal (father-in-law). That, being an advocate, he accompanied the complainant- Vaibhaviben just to assist her in lodging the complaint, and therefore, keeping in mind the grudge, the respondent no. 2 lodged a false complaint against him before Shahibaug Police Station, being C.R No. II-3037 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 294 and 223 IPC. As per averments made in the complaint, in connection with previous complaint lodged by his daughter-in-law on 23rd February 2013, he was arrested by Shri K.C Patel, Police Sub Inspector and when he was standing in the backside of the lobby in Shahibaug Police Station, suddenly daughter-in-law viz., Vaibhavi and one stranger (who can be identified by him on seeing him) came there and abused him and also slapped him, and on raising a hue and cry, daughter-in-law of the complainant-Vaibhaviben and the said stranger left the police station premises. Learned advocate Mr. Unwalla pointed out that the Investigating Officer Shri KC Patel thereafter produce the accused before the Court and he was released on bail. However, on the same day he was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. He was afraid of the complainant and from stranger and therefore, no complaint was lodged immediately. Learned advocate further argued that while the respondent no. 2 was in police custody, it was not possible to attack any person by slapping him on his chick or to abuse him in any manner; as stated in the complaint. According to the learned advocate Mr. Unwalla appearing for the applicant, it is nothing but a counter blast of the complaint lodged by daughter-in-law of the respondent no.2 and the present petitioner being a practicing advocate, assisted her in lodging the complaint has been falsely implicated in the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. That he had received a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C asking him to remain present before the Police. That, the present petitioner if is arrested by the Police, his prestige would be heavily damaged as he has not committed no offence, as stated in the impugned FIR. According to learned advocate, entire story is concocted and got up by the respondent no. 2. Even the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned in the impugned complaint, and therefore, issuing notice to the applicant is erroneous and requires to be quashed and set-aside. According to learned advocate, entire story is concocted and got up by the respondent no. 2. Even the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned in the impugned complaint, and therefore, issuing notice to the applicant is erroneous and requires to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his arguments, learned advocate has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in case of Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2008 (2) GLH 423, and in case of D.P Gulati, Manager Accounts-M/s. Jetking Infotrain Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2015 SC 3760 . He also sought to place reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in case of Jay @ Kano Jagdishbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2015 JX (Guj) 500. 5. Lastly, Mr. Unwalla, learned advocate for the applicant urged the Court to quash and set-aside impugned FIR (at Annexure “A”), being C.R No. II-3037 of 2013 registered with Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad dated 2nd March 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 294-C and 223 IPC alongwith summons (Annexure “C”). 6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Mr. K.L Pandya appearing for the respondent-State in his submissions strongly opposed the application and urged that prima facie involvement of the present applicant is made out from the complaint, though the name of the present applicant is not disclosed in the complaint. But, whatever be the act or crime so committed, as alleged, clearly made out a case against the applicant. That, the present applicant was present at Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad on 23rd February 2013, and therefore, he was called by the Police to inquire about the incident and if need be, he may be taken into custody by the police. According to learned APP, investigation is yet to be carried out by the Police and at this juncture, no powers under Section 482 Cr.PC be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused either in the matter of stalling the investigation or even his arrest by the Police. Hence, it was requested by learned A.P.P. to dismiss the present Application. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Jayesh A. Kotecha appearing for the respondent no. 2 also strongly objected grant of this Application urging that the complainant had lodged complaint against unknown person. On the basis of the complaint, summons were issued by the Police officer against the present applicant. Hence, it was requested by learned A.P.P. to dismiss the present Application. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Jayesh A. Kotecha appearing for the respondent no. 2 also strongly objected grant of this Application urging that the complainant had lodged complaint against unknown person. On the basis of the complaint, summons were issued by the Police officer against the present applicant. That, this petition as well as complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 requires detailed inquiry as it is based on the facts, as narrated in the complaint. That, this would require detailed evidence in trial before the Court and at this juncture, correct aspects on facts cannot be decided by this Court holding the complaint as false or concocted. He has invited attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint at para 2 at page 26B and urged that prima facie involvement of the petitioner is established, as he has slapped the respondent no. 2, who was standing in a lobby of Shahibaug Police Station, and therefore, the request for quashment of the FIR be rejected, by dismissing the present petition. 8. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made for and on behalf of the respective sides by their learned counsel, this Court having gone through the record of the case, it appears that as per FIR, the complainant-respondent no. 2 herein was arrested in connection with C.R No. I-13 of 2013 registered with Shahibaug Police Station and during his police custody, it is alleged that one person alongwith his daughter-in-law came near him and slapped him. The respondent no. 2 herein is the original complainant in the present case and he was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 & 114 IPC vide C.R No. I-13 of 2013. This complaint was filed by the client of the present petitioner. The complainant was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in connection with the said FIR, but he did not make any complaint to the concerned Court with regard to misbehaviour or any kind of harassment meted out to him by the present petitioner. That, charge-sheet came to be filed in connection with the said FIR. The complainant was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in connection with the said FIR, but he did not make any complaint to the concerned Court with regard to misbehaviour or any kind of harassment meted out to him by the present petitioner. That, charge-sheet came to be filed in connection with the said FIR. It appears from the record that the present petitioner came to be served with summons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking him to remain present before the concerned Police Inspector on 2nd April 2013 in connection with impugned FIR, which is produced on record at Annexure “A” filed by the respondent no. 2-original complainant vide C.R II-3037 of 2013 dated 2nd March 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 294 (C) and 223 IPC before Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad. From the averments made in the complaint, no name of the accused was disclosed in column no. 7. The alleged offence was committed on 24th February 2013 between 11:00 and … am., and it was declared before the Police on 2nd March 2013 at 13:30 hours. From the averments made in the complaint, it further culls out that on 23rd February 2013, in connection with complaint lodged by his daughter-in-law, he was arrested by the Police Sub-Inspector Shri K.C Patel at 11:00 hours and when he was standing in the backside lobby of Shahibaug Police Station, suddenly wife of his son namely Jayesh came with an unknown person and abused him and slapped him on his chick, and therefore, he raised hue and cry and on his shouting, his daughter-in-law and said unknown person left the Police Station. The complainant informed Shri K.C Patel, Police Sub Inspector and Investigating Officer on the very same day and he was produced before the Court concerned and thereafter, he was released on bail. Thus, from the averments made in the complaint, it appears that this alleged incident was committed while the complainant (i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein) was in police custody and that too within the Shahibaug Police Station. Before this complaint, it appears that daughter-in-law viz., Vaibhaviben had lodged a complaint before Shahibaug Police Station under Section 498A, 323 read with Section 114 IPC against the respondent no. 2, his son and his wife-Taraben. 9. Later on, learned A.P.P. Ms. 2 herein) was in police custody and that too within the Shahibaug Police Station. Before this complaint, it appears that daughter-in-law viz., Vaibhaviben had lodged a complaint before Shahibaug Police Station under Section 498A, 323 read with Section 114 IPC against the respondent no. 2, his son and his wife-Taraben. 9. Later on, learned A.P.P. Ms. Moxa Thakker appeared for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State and she submitted that statement of Shri K.C Patel, Police Sub Inspector of Shahibaug Police Station has been recorded. It appears that the present petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and representing the case of first informant of the FIR, being C.R No. I-13 of 2013 registered with Shahibaug Police Station. In the statement, Shri K.C Patel, Investigating Officer has not supported the story of the respondent no. 2. Thus, from the averments made in the complaint and the statement of Police Sub Inspector, allegations made in the FIR prima facie do not disclose cognizable offence justifying investigation by the Police Officer under Section 156 (1) Cr.P.C where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the Police Officer without an order of Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 155 (2) CrPC. 10. The Apex Court, in case of D.P Gulati, Manager Accounts – M/s. Jetking Infotrain Limited (Supra) has reiterated the steps which are required to followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction and observed thus: “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. From bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code, it is clear that the object of exercise of powers under the section is to prevent abuse of process of law, and to secure ends of justice. In Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (JT 2013 (2) SC 209), this Court has enumerated the steps required to be followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code as under : “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C : 30.1. Step One : Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality ? 30.2. Step One : Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality ? 30.2. Step two : Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e., the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false ? 30.3. Step three : whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant. 30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the Court, and would not serve the ends of justice ? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused”.” 11. This Court, in case of Jay @ Kano Jagdishbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat (Supra), while allowing the Application, has held and observed as under : “8. It is well settled law that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants have made out a case as pointed out in the above referred decisions. The criminal complaint filed by the complainant seems to be misuse of the process of law and it is only seems to be filed as a counter blast. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants have made out a case as pointed out in the above referred decisions. The criminal complaint filed by the complainant seems to be misuse of the process of law and it is only seems to be filed as a counter blast. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case wither to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside qua the present applicants.” 12. In view of above position of law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and after going through the criminal complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no. 2, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this petition needs to be entertained and allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned complaint, being FIR No. C.R No.-II 3037 of 2013 dated 2nd March 2013 registered with Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 294 (C) and 223 IPC is hereby quashed. All consequential proceedings initiated as follow up action shall also stand terminated. Rule nisi made absolute. No costs. Petition allowed.