JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. These three applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court by various applicants seeking to quash the following FIRs and all other proceedings pursuant thereto: Cr.M.A. No. Applicant FIR Offences 8696/2018 Labhendrabhai Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel) II CR No.3/18 with Changodar Police Station dated 9.1.2018 Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC 1424/2018 Minaxiben Kanaiyalal & 2 others II CR No.4/18 with Changodar Police Station dated 9.1.2018 Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC 12538/2018 Labhendrabhai Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel) II CR No.83/18 with Changodar Police Station dated 23.6.2018 Sections 428, 429, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 2. It appears that the dispute involved is between members of a housing society and on a similar issue i.e. with regard to nurturing stray dogs within the housing society, therefore the petitions are taken up for hearing together though quashment of three different FIRs have been sought for by the respective petitioners. It would be further pertinent to mention that vide an order dated 21.1.2019 all the petitions were directed to be heard together. 3. The short facts leading to the present applications are that the parties reside in the same society, i.e. Meadows-II, Gokuldham, Near Eklavya School, Sanathal, Ahmedabad. The dispute between the parties seem to be about nurturing stray dogs in the society and quarrel ensued on 8.1.2018 at 17.30 hours between the parties. Such a quarrel resulted in lodging of cross FIRs after substantial delay on 9.1.2018. The cross FIRs i.e. II-CR No.3/18 and II-CR No.4/18 are for the offences under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Hirak Ganguly on behalf of the complainant – Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel), under the instruction, has declared before this Court that he has no objection if the FIR being II CR No.4/18 registered with Changodar Police Station and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. 5. Having regard to the statement made by the learned Advocate Mr.Buch on behalf of the complainant - Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel), under the instruction, the FIR being II CR No.4/18 registered with Changodar Police Station is quashed along with all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 6. In view of the above, Criminal Misc. 5. Having regard to the statement made by the learned Advocate Mr.Buch on behalf of the complainant - Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel), under the instruction, the FIR being II CR No.4/18 registered with Changodar Police Station is quashed along with all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 6. In view of the above, Criminal Misc. Application No.1424 of 2018 is disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 7. So far as the other two FIRs i.e. II CR No.3/18 and II CR No.83/18 are concerned, the same are lodged by Minakshiben Kanaiyalal. The said FIRs are sought to be quashed at the instance of the accused - Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel) and Kishorbhai Mottirambhai. 8. The Criminal Misc. Application No.12538 of 2018 has been preferred by the applicants for quashing and setting aside FIR being CR-II No.83/18 registered with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 428, 429, 294(KH), 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Animal Cruelty Act. 9. The Criminal Misc. Application No.8696 of 2018 has been preferred by the applicant for quashing and setting aside FIR being CR-II No.3/18 registered with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC. 10. Learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Hirak Ganguly on behalf of the applicants would submit that the applicants are senior citizens and have no antecedents of being involved in any criminal case herein before. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch would submit that the parties are residing in the same society and the present dispute has arisen out of a trivial issue. Mr.Buch would submit that the offences as alleged in the FIRs are not constituted and the same were filed at a later stage and the delay occurred in filing the same is not explained at all. He would further submit that the offences under Section 504 and Section 506(2) of IPC would not be constituted inasmuch as the informant has not suffered any alarm or threat allegedly given by the accused. Mr.Buch would also submit that the offence under Section 428 and Section 429 of IPC would not be made out as there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to kill, maim or render stray dog useless. Mr.Buch would also submit that the offence under Section 428 and Section 429 of IPC would not be made out as there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to kill, maim or render stray dog useless. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch would submit that there was no intentional harm caused to the stray dogs as the dogs tried to chase a young boy which resulted the young boy getting injured, and therefore, the accused persons had tried to see that the dogs did not cause further harm to the young boy and in the process, the stray dogs had to be frightened away. Thus, in the submission of Mr.Buch for the applicants, by no stretch of imagination, the action of the accused would amount to mischief within the meaning of Sections 428 and 429 of IPC. It has also been contended that the allegation with regard to Section 294B of IPC is false and baseless as is seen from the FIR itself. Mr.Buch would submit that there is no allegation that the accused persons uttered any obscene words in public place. He would submit that the offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is not constituted in absence of any intention to cause injury to stray dogs. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch for the applicants would submit that as the entire dispute has arisen from a trivial issue and the applicant has already agreed to quash the cross Complaint/FIR being II CR No.4/18, therefore, he prays that both the FIRs registered against the accused persons may also be quashed. 11. Learned Advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda appearing for the complainant in the aforesaid FIRs would strongly object to the prayer made by the accused persons to quash the FIRs. He would submit that both the FIRs make out a prima facie case which necessitates investigation, and therefore, the extraordinary powers vested with this Court under Section 482 may not be exercised. He would also state that the accused persons had threatened and abused the informant and her relatives. He would submit that the accused persons had thrown stones and wooden logs at the stray dogs which resulted in serious injury and death of two dogs, and therefore, there is a strong prima facie case and all ingredients of the alleged offences are constituted. Therefore the FIRs may not be quashed. 12. He would submit that the accused persons had thrown stones and wooden logs at the stray dogs which resulted in serious injury and death of two dogs, and therefore, there is a strong prima facie case and all ingredients of the alleged offences are constituted. Therefore the FIRs may not be quashed. 12. The learned APP Ms.Mehta appearing for the respondent State has supported the contentions of learned Advocate Mr.Bharda and would pray that the applications may be rejected. 13.Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the Court is of the opinion that the following aspects require consideration:- 13.1. That there are two separate incidents; one had happened at 17.30 hours on 8.1.2018. There are cross FIRs lodged with regard to the said incident after substantial delay on 9.1.2018. The cross FIRs are under Sections 504 and 506(2) of IPC. The FIRs do not reveal that the informant in the cross cases actually suffered any threat or alarm on account of the incident in question. Out of the cross cases, one FIR has already been quashed with the consent of the complainant. This Court finds that the complainant and/or other witnesses have actually not suffered any threat or alarm, which is a necessary concomitant for commission of offences under Section 504 and 506(2) of IPC. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the other FIR pending. 13.2. The incident of 8.1.2018 is a quarrel that took place between the neighbours. The cause of dispute is for nurturing stray dogs in the society premises by a family. That was opposed by the other set of neighbours on the ground of annoyance and safety. Thus, the cause of dispute is very trivial. 13.3. The second incident had occurred on 31.3.2018 at 17.15 hours. The FIR in connection with the said incident is lodged on 23.6.2018. No reasons are coming forth for such a long delay in lodging the FIR. 13.4. Admittedly, the second incident is also with regard to stray dogs. The FIR levels allegations against 15 people who are residents of the same society and the two accused persons – applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.12538 of 2018 are named. No specific overt act is attributed to the said applicants for causing injury to the stray dogs. 13.4. Admittedly, the second incident is also with regard to stray dogs. The FIR levels allegations against 15 people who are residents of the same society and the two accused persons – applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.12538 of 2018 are named. No specific overt act is attributed to the said applicants for causing injury to the stray dogs. There appears to be no intentional killing, poisoning or maiming of stray dogs at the instance of the present applicants – accused. Thus, the offences would not be constituted. 13.5. The dispute is of a trivial nature. The complainant and her family members appear to be nature lovers who take care of stray dogs. While the complainant in both these complaints is well within her rights to rear dogs stray or otherwise within her home/compound subject to the condition that due care should be taken that the dogs do not cause any nuisance or harm to any person/property. At the same time, the accused party would be well within their rights to complain/take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if any dog being reared/nurtured by the complainant causes any nuisance/harm to any person or property. The residents appear to be educated people residing in the same society and it is hoped that neighbours do not quarrel on such trivial issue and peace and harmony should prevail in such a residential society. 14. In view of the above, the FIRs being II CR No.3/18 and II CR No.83/18 registered with Changodar Police Station and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 15. The Criminal Misc. Application Nos.8696 of 2018 and 12538 of 2018 are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 16. In view of the above judgement passed in the main matters, Criminal Misc. Applications No.1 of 2018 and No.1 of 2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1424 of 2018 do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.