JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash FIR being I - C.R. No. 110 of 2014 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station on 16th August, 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, namely, Ilyashbhai Babubhai Hothi, had lodged an FIR being admitted at Junagadh Government Hospital in Trauma Ward against 4 accused wherein the name of the present applicants are mentioned as accused Nos. 3 and accused No. 4. It is averred in the FIR that when the complainant was standing near the Saragwada Railway Crossing along with his father on the day of the incident at around 11.45 a.m. at that point of time, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were passed and looked towards the complainant and again around 2.00 to 2.30 when the complainant was sitting near the Vadli Chowk at Saragwada village, the accused No. 3 i.e. present applicant No. 2 was having an axe. accused Nos. 1 and 2 both having an iron rod and accused No. 4 i.e. present applicant No. 1 started assaulting to the complainant. The first assault was made by present applicant No. 2 with axe and thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting to the complainant. The complainant had received injury on his head and fallen down. Thereafter, all the four accused had ran away from the place and on reaching the father, namely, Babubhai, as well as Umarbhai, at the place of offence, the complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Junagadh and he was admitted in the Trauma Ward. With the aforesaid allegations, the impugned FIR came to be lodged, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Hardik H. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. Vrunda Shah, learned APP for the State and though ‘Rule’ was served, respondent No. 2-original complainant though chosen not to appear before this Court. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Hardik H. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. Vrunda Shah, learned APP for the State and though ‘Rule’ was served, respondent No. 2-original complainant though chosen not to appear before this Court. 4. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the aforesaid FIR was lodged with mala-fide intention to get the bail cancelled, which was granted by this Court for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 322, 323, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) BA of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, which was registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station vide C.R. No. I-140 of 2013 wherein, this Hon’ble Court released the applicants on regular bail with a condition that not to enter in the Junagadh District except attending the trial for the period of 3 months and 6 months respectively by an order dated 11.4.2014 and 9.7.2014. 5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate further submits that time of offence, which is mentioned in the impugned FIR is around 2.30, however, the applicants were, at that point of time at Amreli Sub Jail, visiting his elder brother for which the certificate in that regard was produced as a part of record which suggests that though applicants were not present at the relevant point of time, they were falsely implicated in the FIR due to the previous animosity. 6. Mr. Dave, learned advocate further submits that applicants have also filed representation before the Higher Official on 23rd August, 2014, however, the Authority had not taken into consideration nor the investigated on the line of defence of alibi of the present applicants. 7. Mr. Dave, learned advocate submits that as the FIR filed with the oblique motive, the same is required to be quashed by exercising inherent power under Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Mr. Dave, learned advocate further submits that so far as trial with regard to other accused is concerned, the same was concluded and judgment and order of the acquittal which was passed on 8th November, 2017 and on that ground also, Mr. Dave, learned advocate submits that continuation of the proceedings against the present applicants would amount of abuse of process of law and he therefore, prays to quash the impugned FIR. 9. On the other hand, learned APP, Ms. Dave, learned advocate submits that continuation of the proceedings against the present applicants would amount of abuse of process of law and he therefore, prays to quash the impugned FIR. 9. On the other hand, learned APP, Ms. Vrunda Shah, for the Respondent-State submits that the present applicants are the history-shitter having 14 cases registered under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and at present also, applicants are in the custody for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325,329,449, 506(2), 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station on 12.3.2023. The case details are as under: S. No. Address Details of the Case Stage 1 Saragwada, Junagadh I/0140/2013, 4-25(1)(b), 4-29, 43-143, 43-147, 43-149, 43-302, 43-307, 43-323, 43-324, 43-326, 43-337, 503-135 FIR Dated 02/11/2013 Junagadh Taluka Police Station, Junagadh 2 Joshipara, Junagadh PRO93/0013/2015, 510-93 PA Stage Dated 15/06/2015 Patanwav Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) 3 Saragwada, Junagadh I/0017/2015, 43-114, 43-419 FIR Dated 20/08/2015 Patanwav Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) 4 Saragwada, Junagadh Cr.P.C. 110/0422/2015, 10-110 PA Stage Dated 16/11/2015 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 5 Saragwada, Junagadh I/0017/2015, 43-114, 43-419 Investigation Stage Dated 20/08/2015 Patanwav Police Station Rajkot (Rural) 6 Khalilpur Junagadh II/0018/2016, 43-114, 43-323, 43-447, 43-504, 43-506(2), 503-135(1) FIR Dated 19/03/2016 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 7 Joshipura Junagadh II/0018/2016, 43-114, 43-323, 43-447, 43-504, 43-506(2), 503-135(1) Investigation Stage Dated 19/03/2016 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 8 Khalilpur Junagadh Cr.P.C. 110/0079/2016, 10-110 PA Stage Dated 11/05/2016 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 9 Saragwada Junagadh BPA 56/0010/2016, 503-56 PA Stage Dated 18/06/2016 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 10 Saragwada Junagadh 11/0043/2018, 43-114, 43-504, 43-506(2) Investigation Stage Dated 11/04/2018 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 11 Saragwada Junagadh I/0097/2019, 43-387, 43-447, 43- 506(2) Investigation Stage Dated 16/06/2019 Junagadh Taluka Police Station Junagadh 12 Saragwada Junagadh Cr.P.C. 107/0179/2019, 10-107 PA Stage 13 I-36/23IPC 386, 506(2), Money Laundering Act. Etc. Dated 19/01/2023 14 I-152/23/IPC 307, 323, 324, 325, Arms Act - 25 (1-B) Dated 12/03/2023 10. Ms. Shah, learned APP further submits that though there was an order of this Court while enlarging on the bail to the accused persons not to enter into Junagadh district, by flouting orders, they had committed an offence and assaulted to the complainant with deadly weapon for which the complainant had received serious injury. 11. Ms. Ms. Shah, learned APP further submits that though there was an order of this Court while enlarging on the bail to the accused persons not to enter into Junagadh district, by flouting orders, they had committed an offence and assaulted to the complainant with deadly weapon for which the complainant had received serious injury. 11. Ms. Shah, learned APP further submits that plea of alibi which was taken by the present applicants and the certificate which was produced, showing that at the relevant point of time, they were with Amreli Sub Jail is also not correct as in the Certificate time is mentioned is around 6.30 in the evening, however, the offence was committed at around 2.00 to 2.30 at noon. Therefore, the certificate itself suggests that at the relevant point of time, they were not in the Amreli Sub Jail to meet his brother. On that ground also, learned APP requested not to interfere in the said order and prays to dismiss the application. 12. Considering the submissions made by respective parties, it transpires that present petition is filed only on the ground of plea of alibi submitting that at the relevant point of time, they were present with Amreli Sub Jail. On examining the Certificate, which is the part of the record suggests that time which is mentioned in the certificate is 16th August, 2014 at around 6.30 p.m. However, incident which was occurred on 16th August, 2014 which is around 2 to 2.30 at noon. it is settled principle of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not embargo upon inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable and sufficient or not. This function is clearly within the domain of the trial magistrate. It is not open to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court by contending that only reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the accusation made against the applicant would not be sustained. Again High Court would not usurp function of the trial magistrate and it would be for him to depose of the case according to law in the light of evidence. Such intervention or interference in the power of the trial magistrate is uncalled for, neither it is the function of the High Court while exercising the its inherent jurisdiction to appraise the evidence nor inquire as to whether it is reliable or not. Such intervention or interference in the power of the trial magistrate is uncalled for, neither it is the function of the High Court while exercising the its inherent jurisdiction to appraise the evidence nor inquire as to whether it is reliable or not. High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings would not appreciate the evidence in inasmuch it is the function of the trial Court and therefore, no finding of plea of alibi can be given in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Another contention of the applicants with regard to the conclusion of the trial for the co-accused is concerned, on examining the judgment and order of the acquittal, it transpires that during the trial neither Investigating Officer, nor PSO was examined, nor the learned Judge has considered with regard to the offence of the Medical Officer though he was examined. The learned judge while acquitting the co-accused had only considered that no any assault which caused to the injury of the complainant was made by the accused who were tried. That this Court is of the opinion that full flagged trial is required to be held qua the applicant and therefore, at this stage, this quashing petition is required to be dismissed. 14. Hence, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.