JUDGMENT : J.C. DOSHI, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar waives service of rule for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2. What is prayed in this petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to quash and set aside FIR being I-C.R. No. 87/2015 registered with Bhadran Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 149, 447, 188 of the IPC. 3. During the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Divyeshwar for the respondent No. 2 produced on record judgment delivered by the learned Addl. CJM, Borsad dated 29.10.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 942 of 2016 in regards to co-accused. Learned APP also produced on record report filed by the Bhadran Police Station, both the documents are taken on record. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons on 26.9.2015 gathered near Javahar Navoday Vidhyalay, Bhadran and they forcibly entered into the school premises and took the students from the classes and pressurized the students to speak against the school administration in front of TV reporter. This allegation has been registered as the impugned FIR at the instance of the first informant before the Bhadran Police Station. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner would submit that the learned Addl. CJM, Borsad, after examining the merits and de-merits of the case of the prosecution and referring various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to make out a case and therefore, has recorded acquittal in favour of the co-accused. It is alleged that the present petitioner has also acted in the same way and therefore, he is similarly situated with the cop-accused. Upon such submission, he submits to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Divyeshwar for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel would jointly submit to pass necessary order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Japan Dave for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent State. 8. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Addl. Asmita Patel would jointly submit to pass necessary order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Japan Dave for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent State. 8. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Addl. CJM Borsad in regards to the co-accused and further, considering the fact that said order has not been carried to challenge before the higher forum, it appears that the role of the present petitioner is on same footing as that of the role of the co- accused, who have been acquitted. Under the circumstances, allowing the FIR to roll into the criminal case is a futile exercise. 9. In case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , interpreting section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally, inherent power of this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court made following observations: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act. (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In the result, present petition is allowed and FIR being I-C.R. No. 87/2015 registered with Bhadran Police Station and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.