[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Asha G vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:437
CRL.P No. 1504 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ASHA G
D/O GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 113, 7TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, BOVIPALYA
MAHALAKSHIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDAN K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O MUTTHURAM, AGED 36 YEARS
NO 153/1, 1ST MAIN
9TH CROSS, BOVI PALYA
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:437
CRL.P No. 1504 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IN CR.NO.28/2021 (NOW
C.C.NO.32092/2021) REGISTERED BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 504, 506,
323 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT
1961 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.5 is before this Court calling in
question proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Chandan K. learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner is said to be the neighbour of a couple,
who get married on 17.11.2006 and their marriage appears to
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
have gone to doldrums. Respondent No.2 registers a complaint on
13.02.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506,
323 read with 34 of the IPC. The police after investigation filed a
charge sheet. The filing of the charge sheet and issuance of
summons is what has driven the present petitioner/accused No.5 to
this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the family of the
other accused. The petitioner is the neighbour and the only
allegation against the petitioner is that she has instigated the
husband to behave in a particular manner and therefore developing
an axe to grind, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in
the case at hand.
5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently oppose the petition contending that
it is the petitioner, who is the reason for all the behaviour of the
husband and therefore, the petitioner should also stand trial and
come out clean in the same.
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would toe
the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material available on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The
marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant appears to
have turned sore. The turning of the relationship sore leads the
complainant to register a complaint on 13.02.2021 for the
aforesaid offences. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The
complaint reads as follows:
" EAzÀ,
ೕಮ ಮು ರತ ೊಂ ಮುತು ಾ
34 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA. 153/1, 1£Éà ªÉÄÊ£ï,
9 ೇ ಾ , ೋ ಾಳ , ಮ ಾಲ ೇಔ ,
ೆಂಗಳ"ರು - 86, #ೕ$ ನಂ. 8217266095
&ಾ - ೋ , ವೃ ಮ ೆ ೆಲಸ
ರವ*+ೆ,
,ೕ-ೕ ಸ. ಇ$0 ೆಕ23.
ಮ ಾಲ ೇಔ ,ೕ-ೕ 4ಾ5ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ.
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
7ಾನ ೆ,
ಷಯ: ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮುತು ಾ . ಅ<ೆ ಾಗಮ=, 7ಾವ >ೋಮಣ@ ೋ .
ಾA ಮಂಜುಳ ಮತು ಆDಾರವರುಗಳE ನನ+ೆ ವರದ 5ೆ ತರುವಂ<ೆ Gಂ>ೆ
ೕಡು ರುವ ಬ+ೆI ದೂರು.
ಾನು JೕಲKಂಡ Lಾಸದ-M ನನ <ಾN ೕಮ ಸ ಾMಪP*ಯಮ=
ಾಗೂ ನನ ಮಕKLೆ" ಂA+ೆ Qಾಸ 7ಾR ೊಂRರು<ೇ ೆ. ನನ+ೆ ಈ+ೆI ಸು7ಾರು 15
ವಷTಗಳ GಂUೆ ಮಂಡ V ೆM. ಮಳವWX ಮಳವWX <ಾ ೋY. ಅಗಸನಪPರ +ಾ ಮದ
QಾZ >ೋಮಣ@ ೋ ರವರ ಮಗ ಾದ ಮುತು ಾ ರವ ೊಂA+ೆ A ಾಂಕ 17-
11-2006 ರಂದು [ೆನ ಪಟ2ಣ ೆಂಗ] Uೇವ>ಾ^ನದ ಹ ರ ಇರುವ ೕ ೋರಯ
ಬಸಯ ಕ ಾ ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ-M ಗುರು G*ಯರ ಸಮು=ಖದ-M ಮದುQೆaಾbದುc,
ಮದುQೆಯ ಸಮಯದ-M ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮುತು ಾ , ಅ<ೆ ಾಗಮ=. 7ಾವ >ೋಮಣ@
ೋ . ಾA ಮಂಜುಳ ರವರುಗಳE ಒ<ಾಯ 7ಾR ನe=ಂದ ವರದ 5ೆaಾb
20,000/- ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣ, 20+ಾ ಂ ತೂಕದ fನ ದ [ೈ$. 05+ಾ ಂ ತೂಕದ
ಉಂಗುರ. Qಾi ಾಗೂ ಬjೆ2ಗಳನು <ೆ+ೆದು ೊಂRರು<ಾ ೆ.
ಮದುQೆಯ ನಂತರ ಸು7ಾರು 02 ವಷTಗಳE ಮಂಡ V ೆM, ಮಳವWX
<ಾ ೋY, ಅಗಸನಪPರ +ಾ ಮದ-M Qಾಸ ದುc ನಂತರ ಾನು ಮತು ನನ ಗಂಡ
ಮುತು ಾ ರವರು ೆಂಗಳ"*+ೆ ಬಂದು ೋ ಾಳ ದ 1 ೇ Jೖ$. 9 ೇ ಾ
ನಂ. 176ರ ನನ ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ-M ಸು7ಾರು 9 ವಷTಗಳE Qಾಸ ದುc, ಆ
Aನಗಳ-M ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮುತು ಾ ರವರು ನನ+ೆ ವರದ 5ೆaಾb ಮ=
<ಾNNಂದ ಮ ೆಯನು ಬ ೆZ ೊಡು ಎಂದು ಪ Aನ ಕುRದು ಬಂದು ಗ ಾjೆ
7ಾಡು ದcರು. ನಂತರ ಾವP ೋ ಾಳ ದ-M ೇ ೆ ಮ ೆ 7ಾR ೊಂಡು
Qಾಸ ದುc, ಆ ಸಮಯದ-M ನನ ಗಂಡ ಅ<ೆ 7ಾವ ಾಗೂ ಾA ರವರು
>ೇ* ೊಂಡು ತವರು ಮ ೆNಂದ ಹಣ ತರುವಂ<ೆ ೇW ನನ+ೆ " ೇ ಅದುರb
ೋಪ3 ಮುಂmೆ, ಸೂLೆ" ಎಂದು ಾN+ೆ ಬಂದಂ<ೆ ೈದು ೈಗWಂದ ೊmೆದು,
ವರದ 5ೆ ಹಣ ತರAದc ೆ ನ ನು >ಾNಸು<ೇQೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ* ೆ ಾnದcರು. ಈ+ೆI
ಸು7ಾರು ಒಂದು ವಷTದ GಂUೆ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನ ೊ ಂA+ೆ ಜಗಳ <ೆ+ೆದು
ವರದ 5ೆaಾb ಹಣ ೊಡAದc ೆ ಾನು ೇ ೆಯವರನು ಮದುQೆaಾಗು<ೇ ೆಂದು
ೇW ನನ ನು ಮತು ನನ ಮಕKಳನು oಟು2. ನಮ= ಪಕKದ ಮ ೆಯ-M Qಾಸ ದc
ಇಬpರು ಮಕKಳ <ಾN ಆDಾ ಎಂಬ ೆಂಗಸನು ಅಗಸನಪPರ +ಾ ಮ ೆK
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋb ನನ ಅ<ೆ 7ಾವ ಾA ರವ ೊಂA+ೆ Qಾಸ ರು<ಾ ೆ.
A ಾಂಕ 11/112/2020 ರಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮುತು ಾ , ಅ<ೆ ಾಗಮ=, 7ಾವ
>ೋಮಣ@ ೋ , ಾA ಮಂಜುಳ ಮತು ಆDಾ ರವರು ಾನು Qಾಸ ರುವ
ಮ ೆ+ೆ ಬಂAದುc, ನನ ಗಂಡ ವರದ 5ೆ ಹಣ ತಂದ ೆ 7ಾತ ನ ನು ಮ ೆ+ೆ
>ೇ*Z ೊಳEX<ೇ ೆ ಎಂದು ೇW, ನನ ಗಂಡನ &ೊ<ೆ ಎ ಾMರು >ೇ* ೊಂಡು
ಅQಾಚ ಶಬcಗWಂದ ೈದು, ೊmೆದು >ಾNಸು<ೇ ೆಂದು ೆದ* ೆ ಾn Gಂ>ೆ
ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ.
ನನ+ೆ ವರದ 5ೆ ತರುವಂ<ೆ ಾN+ೆ ಬಂದ *ೕ ಅQಾಚ ಶಬcಗWಂದ
ೈದು ಾ ಣ ೆದ* ೆ ಾnರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮುತು ಾ , ಅ<ೆ ಾಗಮ=, 7ಾವ
>ೋಮಣ@ ೋ . ಾA ಮಂಜುಳ ಮತು ಆDಾ ರವರುಗಳ Jೕ ೆ ' ಾನೂನು
ಕ ಮ ಜರುbಸ ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮ=-M ೋ*Uೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗLೆ" ಂA+ೆ."
The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as
follows:
"Uೋtಾ ೋಪಣ ಪu2 ಾಲಂ ನಂ 2 ರ-M ನಮೂAZರುವ ಎ1 ಆ ೋv+ೆ
ಎ2 ಆ ೋvಯು <ಾN, ಎ3 ಆ ೋvಯು ತಂUೆ, ಎ14ಆ ೋvಯು
ಸ ೋದ*aಾbರು<ಾ ೆ. ಎ1 ಆ ೋvಯು >ಾ -2 ರವರ ಮಗLಾದ >ಾ -1
ರವರನು A ಾಂಕ 17-11-2006 ರಂದು ಾಮ ನಗರ V ೆM ಚನ ಪಟ2ಣ <ಾ ೊMೕY
ೆಂಗ] ನ-Mರುವ ೕ ೋರಯ ಬಸವಯ ಕ ಾ ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ-M ಗುರು ಸಮwಮ
Gಂದು G*ಯರ ಸಂಪ Uಾಯದಂ<ೆ ಮದುQೆaಾbರು<ಾ ೆ.
ಎ1 *ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ ೋvಗಳE >ಾ -1 ರವರನು ಮದುQೆ 7ಾR ೊಳXಲು
>ಾ -2 ರವ*+ೆ ೇR ೆ ಇಟು2 ಒ<ಾಯ 7ಾR ಮದುQೆಯ ಸಮಯದ-M
2,00,000/-ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣ, 20 +ಾ ಂ fನ ದ [ೈ$, 5 +ಾ ಂ fನ ದ
ಉಂಗುರವನು ಪmೆದು ೊಂRರು<ಾ ೆ.
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
ಮದುQೆಯ ನಂತರ >ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ1 *ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ ೋvಗಳ
&ೊ<ೆಯ-M ಮಂಡ V ೆM ಮಳವWX <ಾ ೊMೕY, ಅಗಸನಪPರ +ಾ ಮದ ಸyಂತ
ಊ*ನ-M ಸು7ಾರು ಎರಡು ವಷT QಾಸQಾbರು<ಾ ೆ. ಅನಂತರ >ಾ -1 ಾಗೂ
ಎ1 ಆ ೋv VೕQಾ ೋ ಾಯ ಾKb ೆಂಗಳ"*+ೆ ಮ ಾಲ ೇಔ
ೋ ಾಳ ದ ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ-M ಸು7ಾರು 9 ವಷTಗಳ Qಾಸ
7ಾR ೊಂRರು<ಾ ೆ.
2018 ೇ ಇಸ ಯ-M ಎ1 ಆ ೋvಯು >ಾ -1 ರವರ Jೕ ೆ ಜಗಳ
7ಾR Gಂ>ೆ ೕR >ಾ -1 ರವರ ತವರು ಮ ೆ |ಾ- 7ಾR ಮ ಾಲ ೇಔ
,-ೕ 4ಾ5ಾ ಸರಹAcನ ೋ ಾಳ , 9 ೇ ಾ , 1 ೇ Jೖ$, Qಾಸ ನಂ
153/1 ರ-M ಾR+ೆ ಮ ೆ 7ಾR ೊಂಡು QಾಸQಾbರುQಾ+ೆI ಎ1 *ಂದ ಎ4
ಆ ೋvಗಳE >ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ ತವರು ಮ ೆNಂದ ೆf}ನ ವರದ 5ೆaಾb ಹಣ
ತರುವಂ<ೆ 7ಾನZಕ ಾಗೂ UೈGಕ Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ.
ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3, ಎ4 ಆ ೋvಗಳE >ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ ೇ ಆದುರb ,
ೋಪ3 ಮುಂmೆ,
ಮುಂmೆ ಸೂLೆ ಎಂದು ಾN+ೆ ಬಂದಂ<ೆ ಅQಾಚ ಶಬcಗWಂದ ೈದು
ೈಗWಂದ ೊmೆದು,
ೊmೆದು ತವರು ಮ ೆNಂದ ವರದ 5ೆ ಹಣ ತರAದc ೆ ನ ನು
>ಾNಸು<ೇQೆ ಎಂದು ಾಣ ೆದ* ೆ ಾn ಗ ಾjೆ 7ಾR 7ಾನZಕ ಾಗೂ
UೈGಕ Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ.ೆ ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಯು ಎ1 ಆ ೋvಯ ಪಕKದ ಮ ೆಯ-M
QಾಸQಾbದುc, ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಯು ಇತ ೆ ಆ ೋvಗLೆ" ಂA+ೆ >ೇ* >ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ
Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ.ೆ ಎ1 ಆ ೋvಯು ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಯ [ಾR 7ಾತು ೇW ಸಹ
>ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ.ೆ
A ಾಂಕ 11-12-2020 ರಂದು ಾ 11-30 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ-M ಎ1
*ಂದ ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಗಳE >ಾ -1 ರವರು QಾಸQಾbರುವ ಮ ೆಯ ಹ ರ ಬಂದು
>ಾ -1 ರವ ೊಂA+ೆ ಗ ಾjೆ 7ಾRರು<ಾ ೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ-M ಎ1 ಆ ೋvಯು
>ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ ವರದ 5ೆ ಹಣ ತಂದ ೆ 7ಾತ ಮ ೆ+ೆ >ೇ*Z ೊಳEX<ೇQೆ ಎಂದು
Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರು<ಾ ೆ. ಎ2 Nಂದ ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಗಳE >ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ ಾN+ೆ
ಬಂದಂ<ೆ ಅQಾಚ ಶಬcಗWಂದ ೈದು, ೈಗWಂದ ೊmೆದು ಾಣ ೆದ* ೆ ಾn
ಆ ೋvಗಳE ಸ7ಾನ ಉUೆcೕಶAಂದ >ಾ -1 ರವ*+ೆ 7ಾನZಕ ಾಗೂ UೈGಕ
Gಂ>ೆ ೕRರುವPದು ತ |ೆNಂದ ದೃಡಪu2ರುತUೆ.
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
ಆದc*ಂದ JೕಲKಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನyಯ ಎ1 *ಂದ ಎ5 ಆ ೋvಗಳ
ರುದ• Uೋtಾ ೋಪಣ ಪu2."
(Emphasis added)
The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except
contending that she has instigated the husband to torture the wife
otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as
is obtaining under the provision i.e., under Section 498A of the IPC.
9. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of RAMESH KANNOJIYA & ANR. v. STATE OF
UTTRAKHAND & ANR.1, wherein the Apex Court holds that
neighbours of the husband's family are not relatives of the husband
and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the
IPC. The judgment reads as follows:
"The appellants have been implicated in a case arising
out of a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "the IPC") and
the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
appellants are neighbours of the family of the husband
(accused no.1). They also appear to have had
facilitated the marriage between the complainant and
the said accused. Main argument of the appellants is
that they are not relatives of the husband and hence
they cannot be implicated in any offence
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The High
Court dismissed the petition of the appellants for quashing the
SLP (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2023, Disposed on 16.02.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
summoning order and the operative part of the judgment
reads:
"At the initiation of the arguments extended by the
learned counsel for the applicant, he attempted to argue
the matter from the perspective that if the
complaint as it was registered by respondent no.2 on
24.10.2020 is taken into consideration, their names
appears in the complaint at serial number 5 and
6. He contends, that the entire summoning
order which has been issued by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate on 27.11.2020 would be bad in
the eyes of the law for the reason being that the
applicant, since not being related to the other
opposite party, they may not be falling within the
purview of commission of offence under Section
498A.
In support of his argument, the learned counsel
for the applicants has submitted, that he wants to
place reliance on a judgment in which it has been
dealt as to what the impact of the term 'relative'
would be under Section 498A of IPC, had been
considered by the judgment of the Allahabad
High Court but, unfortunately, the learned
counsel for the applicants is not ready with
the said judgment and the various lame excuses have
been taken for not being able to present the said
judgment before the Court, because for the purposes of
appreciation of a case to decide the matter on merits,
the judgments are required to be scrutinized In the light
of the actual controversy involved 1n a C482 application,
and there cannot be only an oral assertion at the behest
of the learned counsel for the applicants that the issue
stands covered by the certain judgments, without
placing the same before the Court.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, this Court requested
the learned counsel for the applicants to place
the judgment before the Court. He said that he does not
have the copy of the same and the C482 application may
be dismissed.
Since, there is no proper assistance provided
by the learned counsel for the applicant, the C482
application would stand dismissed."
(quoted verbatim from the judgment as reproduced in
the paperbook)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
Before us, the appellants have relied on the judgment
of this Court in the cases of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT
of Delhi reported in 2010 (11) SCC 618 and U. Suvetha
vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr. reported in
2009 (6) SCC 757. In the case of Vijeta Gajra (supra), it
has been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court:-
"12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of
the word "relative" and further relying on P.
Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Vol. 4, 3rd
Edn., the Court went on to hold that Section 498-A
IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict
construction and unless a contextual meaning is
required to be given to the statute, the said statute
has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court
relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[(2007) 7
SCC 162]. A reference was made to the decision
in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P.[(2007)
15 SCC 369]. After quoting from various
decisions of this Court, it was held that reference
to the word "relative" in Section 498-A, IPC
would be limited only to the blood relations
or the relations by marriage."
In such circumstances, we modify the
judgment assailed in this appeal and quash the
summoning order as against the appellants so far as
the allegation of commission of offence under
Section 498A of the IPC is concerned. The
appellants cannot be implicated in that offence. So far
as other offences are concerned, the prosecution of the
appellants shall proceed in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court considers the very aspect as to whether a
stranger/neighbour can be drawn into a proceeding under Section
498A of the IPC and holds that it is impermissible in law.
10. In that light a stranger cannot be drawn into the
proceedings for offences under Section 498A of the IPC, between
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:437
HC-KAR
the husband, wife or the family members. Permitting further
proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the
process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 on
the file of Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua
the petitioner.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations
made in the course of the order is only for
the purpose of consideration of the case of
the petitioner under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and would not become applicable
to any other accused or influence further
proceedings before the concerned Court, if
any, against any other.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
