JUDGMENT : 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these two petitions, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. These two Special Criminal Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC” for brevity] for quashment of complaint, being C. R. No. I-141 of 2010 registered with Danilimda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for an offence punishable under Sections 384, 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts are that the complainant, when was working with the office of Municipal Corporation in its Dog Squad Department as a Sanitary Sub- Inspector, on 14.06.2010 at about 7.30 o’clock, his Superior Officer had informed him that complainant that two women will come at 11.00 o’clock in the office from Animal Welfare Board. Thereafter, one Toyota Car bearing registration No. GJ-1-AZ-9972 came at 10.30 o’clock and two foreigner ladies came out from the said Car and these two ladies and one another person, who was accompanying them and a driver of the car, total four persons came in the office and started making inquiry about catching of the dogs. That, Dr. Liza Wardenpetitioner No.1 in Special Criminal Application No. 1672 of 2010 asked a question as to how the staff is catching the dogs and therefore, according to the petitioner, complainant had shown iron tongs lying in the office and thereafter, Dr. Liza told to another two persons accompanying her to go out carrying these iron tongs and these two persons had carried 20 iron tongs outside the office and put them in the dickey of the said car. The complainant prevented them from doing so and at that time, another officer namely Dhanjibhai Chaudhary came there, but at that time, all the accused had left the place by carrying with them 20 iron tongs forcefully worth Rs. 8,000/- and that is how the impugned complaint has been lodged. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Prabha Prasad appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 8,000/- and that is how the impugned complaint has been lodged. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Prabha Prasad appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 1672 of 2010 submitted that the petitioners have not committed any alleged offence. That, when catching of dogs with iron tongs is totally prohibited under the law, the campaign of the petitioner no.1 to persuade the Municipal authorities to stop using barbaric methods cannot be said to be a criminal offence. That, the petitioner no.1 had not taken away the iron tongs without the consent of the Municipal Corporation and the tongs were voluntarily handed over by the AMC officials, and she had accepted and these acts do not constitute any offence under Sections 384 or 392 IPC. That, it is simply impossible for a prudent person to believe that being a woman, the petitioner no.1 could have over-powered the entire CNCD department having several staff working and grabbed 20 heavy iron tongs and ran away, as alleged. That, if the tongs were not given voluntarily, the supervisor would not have given it in writing that he would never use the tongs again, as had been specifically agreed by him and given in writing to the petitioner no.1 on the spot. That, there were several witnesses, journalists as well as video recording of the incident, which would clearly establish that she was eventually dragged into the incident and the officials of the Corporation had mala fide intention in filing a false criminal case against her. Right from the outset, she would no longer be able to continue her campaign against the cruel and barbaric method of catching the dogs. That, this is classical example of abusing the process of law and petitioner no.1 cannot be treated in this manner. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 2249 of 2010 has submitted that the petitioner was working with one Down Town Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad as a driver. That, this is classical example of abusing the process of law and petitioner no.1 cannot be treated in this manner. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 2249 of 2010 has submitted that the petitioner was working with one Down Town Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad as a driver. That, the Toyota (Innova) Car, bearing registration No. GJ-1-AZ-9972 was running on hire on the date of incident ie., 14.06.2010 when the petitioner was the driver of the said car, which is used in so called incident and the petitioner has not taken part in so called incident. That, the role of the petitioner is only that co-accused Dr. Liza Warden told that she could take away the tongs and as the tongs were quite heavy, she asked the driver i.e., the petitioner to carry tongs and put them in the car in which they were travelling. That, under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of Animals) Rules 1972 and more particularly under Rule 3 thereof, prohibits capture of any animals, except by sack and loop method. Thus, there is specific prohibition against capturing of any animal by any other method than this. That, it is a case of sheer abuse of process of law and the FIR does not disclose ingredients of the alleged offence. That, while exercising powers for quashing, the Court has to apply two tests viz,, first is whether the criminal recourse is tricky disguised recourse of civil remedy and second is whether the FIR makes out a criminal offence. That, even if the admitted facts are considered, it is a pure abuse of process of law and lacks any bonafide. Lastly, it was requested by him to allow these petitions. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Prabha Prasad for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 in both the petitions submitted that the petitioner has deliberately tried to place on record documents/material which are not connected and/or in no way related to incident that has taken place for which the impugned complaint has been filed. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Prabha Prasad for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 in both the petitions submitted that the petitioner has deliberately tried to place on record documents/material which are not connected and/or in no way related to incident that has taken place for which the impugned complaint has been filed. That, the petitioner or the lady accompanying the petitioner or any of the person was never invited at the premises of Pali Depo of the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner had herself informed that she would be visiting the premises due to which the complainant or the other officers of the Corporation were not expecting such a situation to occur. However, it came as a shock when the petitioner and her accomplice along with the driver of the car in which they had arrived, tried to forcibly push aside the workers working in the premises, and fraudulently by use of illegitimate force, took away the tongs lying in the premises of the respondent-Corporation. The statement made by the petitioner that the entire incident was videographed is a matter of evidence and can be produced before the Investigating authority as an evidence for the purpose of defence, but the petitioner cannot merely make a statement that it will produce some video recording of the incident. In support of her arguments, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 1976 and thereby requested to dismiss these petitions. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent no.1 has submitted that a prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. That, the investigation cannot be hampered in such a serious offence, as the complaint is at initial stage, and therefore, the investigation of it should not be intercepted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioners will have an appropriate remedy at an appropriate stage, if aggrieved after investigation, and therefore, since the petitioners are lying with other remedy at an appropriate stage, this is not a stage where the Court may hamper the process of investigation, and therefore, he ultimately submitted that this Court need not to interfere with the present proceedings and dismiss the same by vacating interim relief forthwith. He has supported the remaining arguments, as were made by learned advocate for the respondent no.3. 9. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners as well as respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State, it appears that complaint was filed, being C.R. No. I-144/2010 for an offence punishable under Sections 384, 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on 18.06.2010 against the driver of Toyota Car, bearing registration No. GJ-1-AZ-9972, one another person whose identity was not known and the petitioner no.1 in connection with an incident which took place on 14.06.2010. As per the averments made in the complaint, present petitioner along with one unknown lady, who as per the information given to the complainant, were working with NGO engaged in animal welfare and had come at the premises of the Pile Depot for verification/visit. They tried to forcefully and fraudulently take away iron tongs of the Municipal Corporation from the premises of the Depot and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 384, 392 and 114 IPC. 10. Averments and submissions made by the petitioner no.1 about her working in animal welfare activities cannot be considered at this juncture, while deciding the present petitions. The documents, which have been relied upon by the petitioners, as the same are correspondences between different organization of the respondent- Corporation. Issues which have been raised by the petitioners are in no way related, or connected with filing of the impugned complaint against them in respect of the incident that took place on 14.06.2010 at the Pile Depot of the respondent no.2. 11. The statement of the petitioners that call was received from the supervisor of CNCD assuring her that respondent Corporation had decided to stop use of iron tongs and that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation had met the petitioner no.1 and assured her that they were relinquishing the tongs appears to be on factual aspect which cannot be considered by this Court in a petition under Section 482 CrPC as well as the statement that on 13th June 2010, one Shri Ganji Chaudhary had called upon the petitioner and requested her to collect 20 odd iron tongs lying with the respondent Corporation premises. All these facts were denied by the respondent no.3 by filing an affidavit of Shri Harjibhai Solanki, who is the complainant. The statement of the petitioner that on 14.06.2010, she was told to take away the tongs, when she visited the respondent corporation premises at Pali Depot was denied. This court is of the view that averments and submissions of the petitioner made in the petition cannot be considered at this stage and same are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency and mere statements cannot be considered for quashing of the petition. The statement of the petitioner that entire incident was video recorded is a matter of evidence and can be produced before Investigating Agency for the purpose of defence of the petitioner. Whatever the material are placed on record does not in anyway support the case of petitioners for exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. 12. In Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 1976, the Apex court has observed that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of the rate cases. 13. The Apex court in a recent judgment, delivered in the case of Chirag M. Pathak and others Vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel and others, reported in (2018)1 SCC 330 , considering the facts of the case, has observed in para 23, as under: 23. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIRs by acting as an appellate court and draw its own conclusion. It is more so when investigation in other societies is not yet complete. 14. In the present case also, investigation is not started in connection with the complaint registered against the petitioners. The averments and documents relied upon by the petitioners are not connected with the impugned complaint, and therefore, cannot be considered in the present petition observing that false complaint was registered against the petitioners or they are falsely involved in the offence. Prima facie, at this juncture, it can be said that cognizable offence has been committed, and therefore, this Court should not interfere into investigation, which is yet to be completed after collecting materials for proving the offence. 15. Prima facie, at this juncture, it can be said that cognizable offence has been committed, and therefore, this Court should not interfere into investigation, which is yet to be completed after collecting materials for proving the offence. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these writ applications fail and are accordingly dismissed. Rule nisi issued in each case stands discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.