ORDER : 1. By way of present application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek quashment of the impugned FIR being M.Case No.1 of 2017 registered with the Sagtala Police Station, District : Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 436, 394, 342, 452, 427, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as the proceedings, if any, arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one boy viz., Bharat belongs to the family of the complainant and one girl viz., Hansa belongs to the family of some of the accused were eloped and could not find out by the police as well as by both the family members as well as by leaders of the village, and that since both belong to same ancestral family, the elders had objection to such relationship, and that the family of the girl and other persons have fired the house of the boy after a period of 20 days of that incident, wherein some belongings were damaged. The accused persons have looted the belongings and live-stocks amounting to Rs.55,000/- and thereby, total damage caused to the complainant was of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. Heard learned advocates. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State. The board endorsement shows that the complainant has refused to accept the notice issued by this Court, therefore, it seems that the complainant has chosen not to appear and contest this application before this Court. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.K.B. Pujara for the applicants submits that this is a gross case of abuse of process of law. He has submitted that it is true that the boy and girl are eloped since long and could not find out till date. He has submitted that the small incident had happened in that grudge, but the Panchas were gathered on the next day as per their community’s system, they have imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- upon the persons who have damaged the belongings of the complainant, that amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid and received by the complainant, agreement to that effect was executed in front of the Panchas and the respective parties, wherein the complainant himself has signed the said compromise deed on 24.03.2015. 4.2 He has submitted that the applicants No.1 and 3 are the government servants and applicant No.2 was the Sarpanch on that time. He has submitted that inspite of knowing these facts, the wife of the complainant had made a complaint to the police authorities at Dahod for the same. The police authorities have inquired and gathered all the facts and had found that compromise was arrived at between all the parties and compensation was also received by the complainant. He has submitted that knowing fully well such facts, even though she had also filed a petition before this Court regarding inaction on the part of the police authorities being Special Criminal Application (Direction – to lodge FIR/Complaint) No.2166 of 2016, wherein this Court has directed the police authority concerned to take into consideration the complaint of that petitioner – wife of the complainant and decide whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. He has further submitted that it was further observed by this Court that, if the complaint and other material, discloses commission of any cognizable offence, then in such circumstances, the FIR be registered forthwith. He has submitted that this Court has also observed that however, if the respondent no.3 is of the opinion, after going through the complaint that preliminary inquiry is to be made to know whether cognizable offence is made out, the same shall done and after that exercise is carried out, if no case is made out for registered of FIR, then in such a situation, the petitioner of that application be informed in writing about such decision by giving reasons in brief, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He has submitted that the said application was preferred by the wife of the applicant, though she has knowledge about the compromise arrived at between her husband and other persons of the community. 4.3 He has submitted that now the husband has filed direct complaint before the learned Magistrate, suppressing facts of compromise and stating wrong and frivolous facts in the said complaint, for getting money from the applicants, as two applicants are the government servants and one is the Sarpanch of the village, though he, himself has filed the compromise deed and received compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the others. He has submitted that the applicants have no role at all in the commission of offence as alleged. He has submitted that the complainant himself has stated that applicants No.1 and 2 were helped in searching the boy and girl and they have tried a lot along with other village persons. 4.4 He has submitted that the brother/relatives of the complainant has stated on oath that the live-stocks belong to the complainant were sold and the money earned out of that, were used in search of the boy and girl and there is no loot as alleged in the complaint by the accused and the complainant has wrongly stated in his complaint. He has submitted that the present case is a gross case of abuse of process of law and therefore, the present application may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . He has submitted that this Court may exercise its powers in favour of the applicants. 5.1 Per contra, learned APP has strongly opposed this application. He has submitted that this is a case where powerful persons have used their powers and thereby tried to shut the mouth of the poor villagers. He has submitted that the incident was happened and the damage was caused by the accused to the complainant’s house. 5.2 He has submitted that the complaint was given before the learned Magistrate and after taking cognizable of the offence, the learned trial Court has directed the police authorities to lodge the complaint. He has submitted that this Court may not exercise the powers in favour of the applicants. He has submitted that this application may be rejected. 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. 6.2 Looking to the entire facts of the case, the following points are weighed with this Court : ? The base of the so-called incident is a boy and a girl of ancestral family, having love affairs, eloped from the village. ? After about twenty days, the house of the boy/complainant got fired and thereby causing damage to the belongings of the complainant by some of his relatives/accused. ? The base of the so-called incident is a boy and a girl of ancestral family, having love affairs, eloped from the village. ? After about twenty days, the house of the boy/complainant got fired and thereby causing damage to the belongings of the complainant by some of his relatives/accused. ? A compromise was arrived at between the parties, including the complainant and the damages worth Rs.20,000/- was paid as compensation to the complainant. ? The complainant himself has signed the said compromise deed, along with other Panchas who are the leaders of the of the village/community as well as his relatives. ? Knowing this fact well and accepting the money, the wife of the complainant has made complaint before the police authorities regarding the incident of fire after about one month. ? The police authority has taken into consideration the compromise deed and did nothing in the complaint. ? The wife of the complainant has file a petition before this Court, wherein this Court has directed the police authorities to act in accordance with law, if the complaint survives. ? Since there was a compromise between the parties and money has been received by the complainant as compensation and therefore, nothing remains, the police authority did not do anything. ? After about more than 15 months, the complainant has filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ? While filing the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code, the complainant has suppressed the fact about the compromise deed, which he has signed and money has been received by him at that time. ? At this time, the complainant has falsely stated his facts about loot and the damage worth Rs.10 lakhs. ? The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and directed the concerned police authority to lodge the complaint. ? A complaint is lodged accordingly. ? It was investigated by the police authorities in accordance with law. ? During investigation, it was found from the statements made on oath by the relatives/real brothers of the complainant that there was no loot or there was no such damages caused to the complainant and the complainant has wrongly stated his facts. ? It is a case of over implication. ? ? During investigation, it was found from the statements made on oath by the relatives/real brothers of the complainant that there was no loot or there was no such damages caused to the complainant and the complainant has wrongly stated his facts. ? It is a case of over implication. ? The complainant himself has stated in his complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code that applicants No.1 and 2 have made much attempt to search the boy and the girl, but they could not find. ? The applicants No.1 and 3 are the Government servant and applicant No.2 was a Sarpanch of the village at that time. ? The complainant has received compensation of the damages caused to his during the incident of fire in front of Panchas and other family members. ? On one hand, the complainant has received compensation qua the incident of damages in fire and on the other hand, he and his wife are trying to lodge the complaint against the alleged accused, for the reasons best known to them. ? The complainant has not approached the learned Magistrate with clean hands. ? Here, the complainant has refused to accept the notice issued by this Court and therefore, it seems that he has chosen not to appear and contest this application. ? This Court has passed similar order and quashed the impugned complaint/proceedings for some of the accused vide order dated 27.06.2023 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No.7231 of 2018. ? This is a gross case of abuse of process of law. ? This Court does not find any merits in the matter against the present applicants. 6.3 In view of above, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. Further, looking to the tenor of the complaint, no offence is made out against the present applicants. Further, considering the compromise deed, which is signed by the complainant himself, the impugned complaint qua the present applicants is nothing but the sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the present applicant. Further, considering the compromise deed, which is signed by the complainant himself, the impugned complaint qua the present applicants is nothing but the sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the present applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus – “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 Art.226 or the inherent powers under sec.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 formulae 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec.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 sec.156(2) of the Code. (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 sec.156(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, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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.” 7. In view of above, the impugned complaint as well as the proceedings arising from the impugned complaint, if any, is required to be quashed by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 qua the applicants only. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1 This application is allowed qua the applicants only. 8.2 The impugned FIR being M.Case No.1 of 2017 registered with the Sagtala Police Station, District : Dahod is hereby quashed and set aside. 8.3 Consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR, if any, are also hereby quashed and set aside. 8.4 Rule is made absolute accordingly. Present Order is modified vide Direct service is permitted.