Karnataka High Court

Smt. Kalaiselvi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.6210 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.    SMT. KALAISELVI
      W/O MANJUNATH
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      R/O NO.1654 9TH MAIN
      A BLOCK, MILK COLONY
      SUBRAMANYA NAGARA
      2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560010

2.    SMT KAVITHA
      W/O THAYAGARAJAN
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
      R/O 403/89
      YESHWANTHPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA
      BEHIND MYSORE SANDAL SOAP FACTORY
      YESHWANTHPURA
      BANGALORE - 560086

3.    THAYAGARAJAN
      S/O KRISHNA
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
      R/O 403/89
      YESHWANTHPURA INDUSTRIAL AERA
      BEHIND MYSORE SANDAL SOPAL FACTORY
      YESHWANTHPURA
      BANGALORE - 560086
                                   ... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI. VIKYATH B., ADV.]
                              2




AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY YESHWANTHPURA P S
      REP BY SPP
      HIGH COURT BUILDING
      BENGALURU -560001

2.    SMT MONISHA S
      W/O SATHISH
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      R/O NO.13
      1ST D MAIN ROAD
      18TH CROSS
      B K NAGAR
      YESHWANTHPUR
      BANGALORE - 560022
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI.B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1;
    R2 - SERVED]

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS        AGAINST    THE    PETITIONERS     IN
C.C.NO.14304/2021 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ACMM,
BANGALORE IN CR.NO.118/2020 OF YESHWANTHPUR
POLICE AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,
325, 504, 506, 420 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON               FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                 THE
FOLLOWING:
                                3



                         ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C.No.14304/2021,

registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri.Vikyath B., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.J.Rohith, learned

HCGP for respondent No.1.

3. The complainant is the second respondent -

wife of accused No.1 - husband, who is not before the

Court. The first petitioner is accused No.5, the aunt of

the first accused. The second petitioner is the sister of

the first accused and the third petitioner is co-brother of

the first accused - husband and are all family members,

who are named in these proceedings. The marriage

between the first accused and the complainant -

respondent takes place on 23.01.2015 and allegations

of demand of dowry and torture made out for such

demand is laid against all the accused, the husband,

the mother-in-law, father-in-law and several others. In

a complaint registered on 24.06.2020, the Police after

investigation have also filed a charge sheet against all

accused including the petitioners for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 504, 506 and

420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. It is at that juncture, the petitioners -

accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 have knocked the doors of this

Court, in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would submit that the petitioners are other

members of the family and have nothing to do with the

squabble between the family members or the husband

and the complainant.

5. The complaint no where narrates any overt

act being performed by the petitioners for them to be

alleged of offences punishable under Section 498A of

IPC. The charge sheet also does not indicate any

offence against the petitioners.

       6.   Respondent       No.2     is   served   and

unrepresented.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated dates are not in dispute.

Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, it is

germane to notice the complaint and is therefore

extracted for the purpose of quick reference:

" From S.Monisha w/o Satish # 13, 1st D Main, 18th Cross B K Nagar Yeshwanthpur Bangalore - 22

To The Inspector of Police Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore -22

Subject: Complaint against my husband Satish for harassing and assaulting

Respected Sir.

Me aged 30, staying at my mothers place #13, 1st D Main, 18th Cross, B K Nagar, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore - 22. I got married & my husband & my in laws stay in Prakashnagar Bangalore. During my stay in my inlaws house my inlaws & my husband used to harass & assault me jewels & cash. Because of that harrassement I went to my mothers place. Even then also my husband used to come to my mothers place & demanding & harassing for want of money & jewellery. When I refused he started assaulting me, abusing & threatened to kill me.

On 22nd June 2020, my husband came to my mothers place as usual to visit us.

After some time he starting asking about my mothers house to be transferred to my son's when I asked why to childs name, he told when I am kill my husband would be the owner for the property.

Then again on next day i.e., 23rd June 2020, my husband came mothers place & demanded for my & my mothers when I asked for the reason he told his sisters husband is demanding for it from them. I refused to give the jewellery & asked when my son was unwell & suffering from Thypoid even you as a father did not enquire about child health, but now you are demanding for jewellery.

So my husband started assaulting & harassing me, my child & my mother. When we shouted & our neighbours came to rescue us, my husband ran away.

Kindly take necessary action against my husband & do the needful.

Thanking You.

Your Sincerely S.Monisha."

9. A perusal at the narration at the complaint

would indicate no offences alleged against the

petitioners much less offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 325, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC against

the petitioners and other members of the family.

10. The Police after investigation have filed a

charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, reads

as follows:

"zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt CAPÀtzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ J2, J3, DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ J1-DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-04, 05gÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß JgÀqÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÄÀ ¤±ÀÑ¬Ä¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀzsÄÀ «UÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ MlÄÖ 580 UÁæA a£Àß, 5 PÉf ¨É½î PÉÆlÄÖ, ªÀgÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀÆmïUÉ gÀÆ.25,000/- ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RaðUÉ ªÀgÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀgÄÀ 10 ®PÀë ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖzÀÄÝ ªÀzsÀÄ«£À PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀgÄÀ CµÀÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsåÀ «®èzÀ PÁgÀt gÀÆ.4®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV £ÀUÀzÄÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è PÉÆlÄÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23.01.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ±Á¸ÉÆÛçÃvÀÛªÁV «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ §¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ ¸ÀÄeÁÓ£À PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.896, 7£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¥ÀæPÁ±ï£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ -21, E°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J5, J6,J7 gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄªÀÄäQ¤AzÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ 5,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 80 UÁæA a£ÀßªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ MvÁÛ¬Ä¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è 580 UÁæA a£Áß¨sÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É½î ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è ¨É½î ªÀ¸ÄÀ ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 392 UÁæA ªÀqÀªÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 188 UÁæA ªÀqÀªÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï PÉÆr JAzÀÄ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ½UÉ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä §½ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ºÉÃ½ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁr £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæÃºÀªÉ¸ÉVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

»ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÄÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA-13, 1£ÉÃ 'r' ªÉÄÊ£ï, 18 £ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, ©PÉ.£ÀUÀgÀ, AiÀÄ±ÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è vÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄUÀÄ«£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÁUÀ C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÄÀ J5 jAzÀ J7 gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄªÀÄäQÌ¤AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉªÀÄä¢AiÀiÁVgÀ®Ä ©qÀzÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ E®èªÁzÀ°è ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÁQë- 1 gÀªÀjAzÀ zÀÆgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

J1- DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ¥sÁå«Ä° PÉÆÃmïð£À°è JA.¹.4310/2017gÀ°è ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄUÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ zÁªÉ

ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ J1--DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ¤UÉ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝj UÀAqÀ£ÀzÉÃ JAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÄÀ ¢PÀÌj¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.06.2021 gÀAzÀÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÄÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ §gÉ¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ MvÁÛ¬Ä¹ ¸ÁQë- 1gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è J1-DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr CªÀjUÉ wÃªÀæ jÃwAiÀÄ UÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J5 jAzÀ J7 gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄªÀÄäQÌ¤AzÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÁV¤AzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀ®Ä MvÁÛ¬Ä¹ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ, ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."

11. Here again, there is nothing against the

petitioners except making omnibus statement that

accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 have instigated the husband

and other members of the family to meet out such

torture or file M.C. Petition No.4310/2017.

12. Therefore, finding nothing against the

petitioners, permitting further proceedings to continue,

would fall foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs.

State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online

SC 162, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

"11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was

aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.4, has observed:-

"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the

woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."

14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.5, it was also observed:-

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The

institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 6, it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment

over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber,

peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.7, it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

  "   there     has     been      an     outburst    of
  matrimonial     dispute        in     recent   times.

Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered

helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana 8, it was also observed that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of

their involvement in the crime are made out."

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR

dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17."

13. In the light of the facts obtained in the case

at hand and the complaint or the charge sheet not

pointing any allegations against the petitioners, further

proceedings, if permitted to continue become an abuse

of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.14304/2021 pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benagluru, stands quashed.

The observations made in the course of this order

is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of

the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same