Suresh Garodia vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3100 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010143382017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./825/2017

            SURESH GARODIA
            S/O LATE GANGADHAR GARODIA, R/O BHANGAGARH, GS ROAD,
            GUWAHATI-5, UNDER BHANGAGARH POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT
            KAMRUP M, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            ASSAM

            2:MRS. SABINA AHMED
            W/O LATE NIJAMUDDIN AHMED
             R/O HOUSE NO. 3
             C/O RAJIB L. BARMAN
             P.N.G.B. ROAD
             PS- BHARALUMUKH
             GUWAHATI-9
             DIST. KAMRUP MASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A K Bhattacharyya
                             : Mr. P. Kataki
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. D. Das, A.P.P.

: Mr. T H Hazarika (R2) Page No.# 2/17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date of hearing : 28.07.2022 Date of verdict : 22.08.2022

VERDICT (CAV)

Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. H. Hazarika, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the petitioner, namely Sri Suresh Garodia, for quashing of proceedings of GR Case No.13706/16, under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Bharalumukh Police Station Case No. 580/16, and also for quashing the order dated 04.07.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guwahati, in GR Case No. 13706/16, for taking cognizance under Section 376/506 of the IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 04.07.2017, the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner by rejecting the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of this criminal petition, is briefly stated as under:-

"On 04.12.2016, the informant- Smti. 'X', (name withheld) lodged one Page No.# 3/17

FIR before the Bharalumukh Police Station Guwahati, alleging inter alia, amongst others, that she was raped by Sri Suresh Garodia, while she was 15 years old and as a result of which, she gave birth to a child namely, Mr. Akhil Ahmed Garodia (actual name withheld) on 07.04.1983, when she was only 16 years old. And Sri Suresh Garodia coerced her not to lodge any FIR and threatened her of dire consequences if she takes legal recourse and she was scared of him because he was a very powerful and influential person. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bharalumukh Police Station registered Bharalumukh P.S Case No. 580/16, under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the same. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded the statement of the victim girl/informant and her son, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The blood samples of all the three persons were collected and sent for testing at Forensic Science Laboratory at Kolkata, and collected the report. The report indicated that Akhil Ahmed Garodia, is the son of Sri Suresh Garodia. During investigation, the I.O. also found that Sri Suresh Garodia provided cash amount and other facilities to the victim/informant's son. And due to greed of property of Sri Suresh Garodia, his son with the aid of his mother lodged an FIR after a period of 34 (thirty four) years, and due to the property dispute between Sri Suresh Garodia and his son, this case has been lodged. The I.O. also found that the dispute is civil nature and therefore, he returned the case in final report with a prayer to discharge accused Suresh Garodia from the case. Thereafter, the learned Court below has issued a notice to the informant, and Page No.# 4/17

accordingly, the informant appeared before the learned Court below on 31.05.2017, and filed one petition before the learned court below for not accepting the final report so submitted by the I.O., on the ground that the report of ossification test as well as DNA report is in favour of the informant and on the basis of the same came to the conclusion that the accused Suresh Garodia is the biological father of her son and that the I.O. had returned the case in final report as Sri Suresh Garodia had already paid cash amount and other benefits to the informant's son, but, she had suffered both mentally and physically and she also suffered irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated in terms of money in the event of accepting the Final Report submitted by the I.O. Thereafter, the learned court below, considering the materials available on record, and the conclusion given by the I.O. that the accused is the biological father of the informant's son and also considering the admission made by the accused and further that he has paid some amount to him, rejected the Final Report and taken cognizance upon the same as per provision of Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., under Section 376/506 of the Indian penal Code."

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the following ground:-

(i) that, the occurrence took place about 34 years back and the same has not been explained;

(ii) that, the informant was allegedly raped, while she was 15 years old, but not a date or place, where the alleged incident took place, was mentioned in the FIR nor in her statement recorded under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C. except the vague statement that she was Page No.# 5/17

raped when she was 15 years old;

(iii) that, the petitioner was having relationship with the informant and as a result, the informant gave birth to a male child and the said son of the informant has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner on behalf of the informant and entered into an agreement on 08.08.2012, and therefore, there is no reason for lodging FIR after 34 years except to seek further compensation;

(iv) that, the informant with oblique motive in order to pressurize the petitioner to arrive at a settlement as per her own terms decided to lodged an FIR making a vague allegation just to harass and malign the petitioner;

(v) that, the investigating Officer, after collecting all relevant materials come to the finding that due to greed of property, the son of the informant with her aid, lodged an FIR after 34 years, and it is a case relating to property dispute, and the learned Court below failed to consider the same aspect resulting miscarriage of justice;

(vi) that, there is no material produced by the informant to determine her age at the time of the alleged incident and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition;

5. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that prior to lodging of an FIR on 04.12.2016, the son of the informant entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 08.08.2012, and pursuant to the said settlement deed, the petitioner has given a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only to the son of the informant as full and final settlement of all the past, present and future claim, if any, whatsoever. And thereafter also at the Page No.# 6/17

direction of her son, the informant has filed an FIR after 38/39 years and that the petitioner had given the status of wife to the informant and he has also given the status of his son to the son of the informant and as such the doctrine of inequity come into play here in this case in filing the FIR after 38/39 years and that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is no explanation for delay of 34 years in filing the FIR.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya, has referred two case laws, R. P. Kapur vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SUPPL (1) SCC. And that with mala fide intention the case is filed by the informant and as such the case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the Bhajan Lal case. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, Mr. T. H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that the informant was 15 years old at the time of the incident of the offence, and she has given birth to a baby boy while she was 16 years old. During investigation, DNA test was conducted and the same matched with the son of the informant and the accused petitioner and the petitioner also admitted that he is the father of the son of the informant. Mr. Hazarika further submits that though the petitioner has stated that pursuant to an agreement, payment of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only was allegedly made and the matter was settled once for all, yet, the informant was not a party to the said agreement, and it was an agreement between the son and the father/petitioner, and that this is not a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised.

8. Mr. Hazarika, further submits that though there is delay, yet, in the case of sexual offence, delay in filing the FIR is not immaterial. In support of his Page No.# 7/17

submission, he has referred one case law- Deepak vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 762, and also another case law- Sohan Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 1 SCC 68.

9. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case record of the learned court below, and the impugned order, dated 04.07.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guwahati, and also gone through the case laws, so referred by the learned Advocates of both the parties. It appears that the FIR was lodged on 04.12.2016, wherein, it is alleged that informant/victim was raped by Sri Suresh Garodia, while, she was only 15 years old and as a result of which she had given birth to a child on 07.04.1983, when she was 16 years old, and she could not lodged an FIR as she was threatened with dire consequences, if she takes legal recourse and she was coerced all along.

10. It also appears from the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer that during investigation he has examined the informant, her son and the accused and also got the statement of the informant and her son recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and he collected blood sample of all the three persons and sent the same for testing at F.S.L. Kolkata, and he collected the report and accordingly, he found that the accused/petitioner is the father of the son of the informant and that the petitioner namely, Sri Suresh Garodia, has also provided some cash money and other facilities to his son. The I.O. also found that due to greed of property, his son with the aid of his mother/informant, lodged an FIR after 34 years, and therefore, he had returned the case in Final Report with a prayer of discharging the accused/petitioner.

11. It also appears that the accused/petitioner had admitted that he is the Page No.# 8/17

father of the informant's son and that he has given the status of wife to the informant and also pursuant to an agreement dated 08.08.2014, he had given a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs) only as full and final settlement of the past, present and future claim, if any, whatsoever and the petitioner has paid the entire amounts in 2(two) instalment. But, a careful perusal of the agreement, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure No.3, reveals that it was an agreement between the son of the informant and the accused/petitioner. The informant appears to be not a party to the said agreement and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is not bound by the terms and condition made in the said agreement. From the documents placed on record as well as the submission made by the learned Advocates of both the sides, it becomes apparent that the petitioner has admitted that he is the father of the son of the informant and he also admitted having given the status of wife to the informant. In view of the aforesaid admission and also in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, what left to be seen by this Court is whether the present case, which is registered under Section 376/506 of the IPC, can be quashed by exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

12. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, relying upon two earlier decision in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

I. that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quashed the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offence under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised having Page No.# 9/17

overwhelming and pre-dominantly a civil character, particularly those arising out of the commercial transaction or arising out matrimonial relationship or family dispute and when the party has resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves.

II. Such power is not be exercised in those prosecution which involves heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

III. Similarly such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like prevention of corruption act or offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of the compromise between the victim and the offender thereafter.

IV. While exercising the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quashed the criminal proceeding in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedent of accused, the conduct of the accused, namely whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into the compromise etc.

13. It is to be mentioned here that in the case in hand, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is rape and the case was registered under Section 376/506 of the IPC. The occurrence took place while she was 16 years old. It is Page No.# 10/17

a serious offence and it is an offence against the society, and it involves moral depravity. It is however, a fact that there is delay of 34 years in filing the FIR. But, an explanation is offered for the same. The informant had stated that she was coerced all along and threatened with dire consequences in the event of taking legal recourses.

14. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that delay in filing of the FIR is immaterial in the sexual offences. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, where it has been held that - "the court cannot over look the fact that in sexual offences delay in lodging the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns that reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of the family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged." The explanation, so forthcoming herein this case from the informant's side, and whether it is believable or not, has to be decided at the stage of trial only and that too after appreciation of evidence, not at this stage.

15. In the case of R. P. Kapur (supra), while dealing with inherent power of the High Court under section 561-A of earlier Code, (which is pari-materia with section 482 of the Code), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercising its jurisdiction under section 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it will not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would Page No.# 11/17

not be sustained."

16. In the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728, in paragraphs 14 to 16, it is observed and held as under:

"14. Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. [State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561: 1982 SCC (Cri) 283] It is also settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation. [Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370, 395: 1985 SCC (Cri) 180]"

"16. Lastly, it is required to be reiterated that while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Of the Code of quashing an investigation, the court should bear in mind what has been observed in the State of Kerela vs, O.C. Kuttan reported in (1999) 2 SCC 651, to the following effect - "Having said so, the court gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest and rare cases; that the court will not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim and caprice. It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage, it is not possible for the court to shift the materials to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other."

17. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Hoque reported in (2005) 1 SCC 122, in paragraph 11, Hon'ble Supreme Page No.# 12/17

Court has observed and held as under:

"11. ... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with......"

It is further held that -

"It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings."

18. Similar view is expressed in the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Sesagiri vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 13 SCC 165, where it has been held that "High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant.

19. In this Case of State of Orissa vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC On

Line SC 1222, decided on 11th December 2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court has comprehensively dealt with the powers exercisable and the extent of the Page No.# 13/17

jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and held as under:-

"6. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any Court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision, this Court had carved out the exceptions to the general rule that normally in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal proceedings/FIR should not be quashed. Exceptions to the above general rule are carved out in para 102 in Bhajan Lal (supra) which reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter 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 under Section 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 channelized 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 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 Page No.# 14/17

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, 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."

6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing the mini trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court."

20. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of others reported in 2021 SCC online 315, Hon'ble Supreme Court held at the Court cannot embark upon the enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

Page No.# 15/17

21. Again, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Akhil Sharada & Ors. [2022 Live Law (SC) 594], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (See State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222 [paras 14, 15, 16, 18 & 22] (ii) CBI v. Thommandru, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923

(iii) Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 (iv) Neeharika Infrastructure v. Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315;

22. Thus, from the illuminating discourse, the legal proposition, in respect of quashing of FIR/Complaint and criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be crystallized as under:-

(a) The High Court cannot enter into the merits of the case, or

(b) The High Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry, or

(c) The High Court cannot conduct a trial as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR, or

(d) The High Court cannot see the probability of conviction on the basis of evidence on record.

23. This being the factual as well as legal position, this court is of the Page No.# 16/17

considered view that this is not a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceeding of GR Case No. 13706/2016 under section 376/506 IPC.

Mr. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had rightly pointed out during hearing.

24. I have considered the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya in respect of the doctrine of inequity that after 34 years of the offence and having received the status of wife and also having received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, nothing remains with her to claim further. But, the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya left this Court unimpressed in as much as this Court is bound to maintain the balance between both the parties. The suffering of the informant and suffering of the petitioner both are to be balanced and redressed as sought for and it should be equitable for both the side. It is not out of place to mention here that - "Right to protection from sexual harassments is universally recognised basic human rights. The common minimum requirement of the right has received global acceptance. This right has been embodied in the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. With the increasing emphasis on gender justice resentments toward the incident of sexual harassment is increasing gradually. And a duty is cast upon the judiciary to realise the true concept of the gender equality.

25. In view of the discussion made herein above, and also in view of the ratio laid down in the case law discussed herein above, especially in the case Laxmi Narayan (Supra), this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where, the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quashed the criminal proceeding of GR case No. 13706/16, under Section 376/506 of the IPC.

Page No.# 17/17

26. I have examined the impugned order dated 04.07.2017, filed by the learned Court below and I find that the same suffers from no illegality or impropriety, requiring any interference of this Court. The learned Court below considered the Final Report and the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, and in view of the admission made by the petitioner that he is the father of the informant's son, did not agree with the finding of the I.O. and taken cognizance against the petitioner to proceed under Section 376/506 of the IPC.

27. In the result, I find no merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Interim order if any, stands vacated. Send down the record of the learned Court below, immediately, with a direction to proceed in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant