ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) praying for the following reliefs: “9(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Criminal Misc. Application. (B) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 11195004200011 Registered before Deesa (South) Police Station, District Banaskantha in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as to further investigation of FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 11195004200011 Registered before Deesa (South) Police Station, District Banaskantha in the interest of justice. (D) xxxx” 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this application, as stated in the application, are such that the impugned FIR is filed stating that the complainant was present at her residence and that the house is on the name of her father-in-law Ishwarlal and that father-in-law, her father and herself is staying at ground floor; that her sister-in-law Dhartiben, her husband Dineshbhai is staying at upper floor; that her husband is residing at Vedant society in Deesa; that the complainant and the accused had some dispute regarding the house from quite some time and in that regard, the complainant had given a complaint in the police station also; that at around 3.30 p.m. when the complainant was sleeping, after a while sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Dhartiben was talking to the present petitioner i.e. Ashwinbhai Bansilal Modi residing at Patan and on the phone she was conveying to Ashishbhai that today she is going to kill the complainant; that after this conversation, the accused no. 1 went at the back gate of the house and was locking down the front gatel that the complainant got out of the house and during that time, Dhartiben, accused no. 1 came with wooden stick in her hand and injury was caused on left hand of the complainant and thereafter the complainant with stone and also injured the finger of the complainant; that thereafter the accused no. 1 came with wooden stick in her hand and injury was caused on left hand of the complainant and thereafter the complainant with stone and also injured the finger of the complainant; that thereafter the accused no. 1 went in bathroom and brought kerosene with her and that kerosene was poured on the complainant and the complainant started shouting and nearby people gathered around; that thereafter Dhartiben again called Ashishbhai and locked the front gate; that thereafter the complainant called her husband Yogeshkumar and her husband informed the relatives namely Hansaben Vasantkumar Popatiya, Premilaben Bachubhai Bharatiya and Induben Laxmichand Kanudawala, who came and tried to resolve the issue, but the main gate was locked and they could not enter; that the complainant tried to snatch away the key from Dhartiben and at that time, the accused no. 1 bit the complainant on her right hand and also gave kick and fist blows to the complainant; that the husband of the complainant called police and therefore the police came and opened the main door which was locked and took Dhartiben to the police station and when the complaint of Dhartiben was noted down, at that time, the complainant was at Deesa government hospital for her treatment and the complainant is giving the present FIR after taking primary treatment from government hospital. It is this FIR which is prayed to be quashed qua the present applicant by filing this application. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anuraj Rathore for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for respondent no. 1-state. Though rule is served, none appears for respondent no. 2. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Rathore for the applicant has drawn my attention towards two FIRs-one filed by Dhartiben who is accused no. 1 in the present FIR against Ishwarbhai Modi and other where the complainant is Shivaniben who is also shown as accused. The impugned complaint is filed under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 285 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code on the same day as a counter blast. He submitted that the complaint is filed by the Dhartiben prior in point of time and the complainant filed by Shivaniben is subsequent. Moreover, on bare reading of the complaint, he submits that at the time of incident, the applicant was not present at the place of incident. He submitted that the complaint is filed by the Dhartiben prior in point of time and the complainant filed by Shivaniben is subsequent. Moreover, on bare reading of the complaint, he submits that at the time of incident, the applicant was not present at the place of incident. The only role attributed to him, even from the complaint, is that one phone call is made by Dhartiben to the present applicant who happens to be uncle-in-law and accordingly she has acted as per the advice of the present applicant. It also transpires that even the call details which are produced on the record are of Dineshbhai and no active participation of the present applicant can be inferred from even the bare reading of the FIR and therefore he submits that ingredients of Sections 323, 324, 285, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code are not attracted and not satisfied qua the present applicant as he admittedly was not available at the place of incident. Looking to the allegation in the FIR, he was talking to Dhartiben on call and therefore none of the sections can be applicable against the present applicant. He, therefore, submits that with a view to harass the present applicant as he happens to be the maternal uncle of the Dhartiben as his name is also given in the FIR which is filed, admittedly subsequent to the FIR filed by Dhartiben, this is a fit case where the Court should exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, by considering the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 as continuation of the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, learned APP has submitted that prima-facie on bare reading of the FIR offence is made out. Moreover, he has drawn my attention to the FIR which is registered on 21.1.2020 and that the present application is filed immediately on 3.2.2020 wherein this court has issued rule and granted interim relief, therefore effectively no investigation could be carried out. He therefore submitted that the considering the role of the applicant in the offence in question and by considering the totality of the circumstances, the powers under Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised which should otherwise be exercised very sparingly. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents on record. He therefore submitted that the considering the role of the applicant in the offence in question and by considering the totality of the circumstances, the powers under Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised which should otherwise be exercised very sparingly. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents on record. Sections which are invoked in this FIR are as under: “323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life] or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute un-chastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 285. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter - Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 7. Now, considering the averments made in the FIR, it is undisputed fact that the present applicant was not available at the place of incident. On the contrary, the allegation is that Dhartiben was talking to her maternal uncle on telephone about the causing some damage to Shivaniben who is the complainant in the present complaint. Except this, no role is attributed even in the FIR. Now, considering such allegation, Sections 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC cannot be attracted, as at the time of incident, he was not present at the place of incident and as per allegation in the FIR, he was talking to the co-accused and therefore, there is no question to give any threat to the complainant. Language of Section 285 used in the section clearly rule out any applicability of the said section qua the present applicant in the facts of the present case. 8. Therefore, considering this aspect as well as considering the aspect that one earlier FIR is filed by the co-accused Dhartiben against the present complainant who happens to be sister-in-law and with a view to implicate every near relative, such FIR might have been filed. Otherwise, even considering the allegations made in the FIR as true, then also no offence is made out against the present applicant as the ingredients are not satisfied and therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings qua the applicant. 9. Otherwise, even considering the allegations made in the FIR as true, then also no offence is made out against the present applicant as the ingredients are not satisfied and therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings qua the applicant. 9. In the case of Bhajalal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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. (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. (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.” 10. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , more particularly Para 23 and 24 thereof, which read as under: “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself'. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. Discussion of decided cases.” 11. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. Discussion of decided cases.” 11. In view of above settled position of law and after considering the facts as alleged in the FIR and circumstances of the present case, it transpires that continuation of further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR will cause greater hardships to the applicant and no fruitful purpose would be served if such further proceedings are allowed to be continued. The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with ulterior motive to pressurise accused or to settle the score. 12. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 11195004200011 Registered before Deesa (South) Police Station, District Banaskantha, as well as subsequent proceedings, if any, arising out of the same FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits regarding the other co-accused.