- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7917 OF 2015 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 502 OF 2016, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 503 OF 2016, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5768 OF 2016 IN CRL.P No. 7917/2015 BETWEEN: MR. HARISH N.V S/O. VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 1ST FLOOR, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, NAGSHETTY HALLI, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY CBI/SCB/CHENNAI-01. 2. P.S.GANCHINGATTI S/O. LATE SAVLIGEPPA ACP, DEVANAHALLI, SUB-DIVISION, BENAGALURU-562110. 3. SHRI. UMASHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY OB VAN DRIVER OF KASTURI PVT.LTD. BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JEEVAN J.NEERALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.No.332/2015 IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE (SPL. COURT FOR CBI CASES) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S.143, 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 325, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 342, 355, 435, 333, 353 AND 506 R/W 149 OF I.P.C. AND SECTION 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PUBLIC PROPERTIES ACT 1984. IN CRL.P NO. 502/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH R. S/O. GOUDAR RJH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 1022, LIG, 2ND STAGE, "B" SECTOR, NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. 2. SRI. MANIKLAL M. DONGADI S/O. MOTILAL G. DONGADI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ADVOCATE, NO. 204, II FLOOR, SRI SAI ELEGANCE APARTMENT, 2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, N.S. PALYA, B.T.M. 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 046. 3. SRI. RAMESH Y.R. S/O. LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ADVOCATE, NO.103, 2ND FLOOR, 38TH CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 069. 4. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR S.P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.9/2, 1ST MAIN, 3RD WEST CROSS, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 054. 5. SRI. SATEESHA B.M. S/O. LATE MUNIBEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.23, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040. 6. SRI. DEVARAJA K. S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 43, 4TH "D" CROSS, PUSHPAVATHI NAGARA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560 007. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 7. SRI. GOVIND S. S/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 46, 5TH CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026. 8. SRI. MADESH N S/O. LATE T. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.11/3, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 026. 9. SRI. ROOPANANDA H.J. S/O. JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.170, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 078. 10. SRI. SHANKAREEDY G. S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.32/1, 1ST FLOOR, VASANTHAPPA BLOCK, CBI ROAD, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SHRI. P.S. GACHINGATTI S/O. LATE SAVLIGEPPA, ACP, DEVANAHALLI, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-562 110. 3. SHRI. UMASHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, OB VAN DRIVER OF KASTURI PVT. LTD., BENGALURU-560 004. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.K.BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN R.C.NO.7(S)/2013 AND R.C.NO.8(S)/2013 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.332/2015) THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTING TO REGISTER A CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUANCE SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 149 R/W 143,147,148,294,323,324,325,342,355,435,333,353,506 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.332/2015 (R.C.NO.7(S)/2013 AND R.C.NO.8(S)/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CBI, SCB, CHENNAI) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XVII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 149 R/W 143,147,148,294,323,324, 325,342,355,435,333,353,506 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT AS AGIANST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO D. IN CRL.P NO. 503/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. 503/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VISHWANATH N. S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 7, D.B. STREET, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039. 2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU S.P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. SAMAKAHALLY VILLAGE, B.D. HALLY POST, HONEKERE HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DIST.-560123. 3. SRI. HARISH KUMAR R.S. S/O. SHANKARIAH R V, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 25, 4TH MAIN, 4TH H CROSS, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079. 4. SRI. N. SRIDHAR S/O. LATE NARYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO.143, 14TH B MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 5. SRI. MADHUSUDHAN C.B. S/O. BORE GOWDA C.B, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 30/8, 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560072. 6. SRI. SANTHOSH B.Y. S/O. B. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 194, 12TH B MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 7. SRI. PRASANNA K.N. S/O. NAGARJUN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 97, J.C. NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086. 8. SRI. SANTHOSH T.C. S/O. CHOWDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 5, 18TH CROSS, ULLAL, BENGALURU-560056. 9. SRI. JAGADISH M.L S/O. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT. NO. 137, A-CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI, REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. SHRI. P.S.GACHINGATTI S/O. LATE SAVLIGEPPA, ACP, DEVANAHALLI, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-562110. 3. SHRI. UMASHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS OB VAN DRIVER OF KASTURI PVT. LTD., BENGALURU-560004. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.K.BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN R.C.NO.7(S)/2013 AND R.C.NO.8(S)/2013 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.332/2015) THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTING TO REGISTER A CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUANCE SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.11 TO 16 AND 18 TO 20 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 149 R/W 143,147,148,294,323,324,325,342, 355,435,333,353,506 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.332/2015 (R.C.NO.7(S)/2013 AND R.C.NO.8(S)/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CBI, SCB, CHENNAI) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 149 R/W 143,147,148,294,323,324,325,342,355,435,333, 353,506 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT AS AGIANST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.11 TO 16 AND 18 TO 20 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO D. IN CRL.P NO. 5768/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. THIPPESWAMY K.M S/O. MUDDURAN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.11, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-560 003. 2. SRI. SHIVA NANDA SWAMY S/O. LATE SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # 7, 5TH CROSS MAGADI ROAD, NEAR PRASANNA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 023. 3. SRI. NAVEEN K.K. S/O. SRI. KRISHNA GOWDA, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.4062, 2ND CROSS, MANASA NAGAR, NAGAR BHAVI, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. 4. SRI. KESHAV BABU S. S/O. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.20, 2ND CROSS, G.K.MUNIYAPPA GARDEN, CHAMUNDESHWARY LAYOUT, VIDNAYANPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097. 5. SMT. SHARADA C. W/O. SHRI XAVIER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.43, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, K.S.TOWN, BENGALURU-560 060. 6. SRI. NAGRAJAPPA B. S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA B., AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # 2334,1ST FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, E BLOCK, SUBRAMANYA NAGARA, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 7. SRI. YOGENDRA H. S/O. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.31, 2ND CROSS, 14TH MAIN, GELEYARA BALAGA, MAHALKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086. 8. SRI. RAJAPP S/O. SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.14/4, 3RD CROSS, SAMPANGI ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 9. SRI. M.V. MARUTI S/O. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ADVOCATE, # NO.97,WHITE CITY, LAYOUT, 5TH CROSS, SEEGHALLI, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 029. 10. SRI. BRIJESH R. S/O. SRI. F.M. RAGHUPATI GOWDA, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AGED ABOUT MAJOR, # 151, 3RD CROSS, 20TH MAIN, UCO BANK LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 066. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SHRI. P.S.GACHINGATTI S/O. LATE SAVLIGEPPA, ACP, DEVANAHALLI, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-562 110. 3. SHRI. UMASHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, # 666, NEAR IYAPPA TEMPLE, SUBBAIAH PALYA, MARUTI SEVA NAGAR, BANGALURU-560 004. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.K.BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.332/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,294,323, 324,325,342,355,435,333,353 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.332/2015 (RC NO.7(S)/2013 AND RC NO.8(S)/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CBI, SCB, CHENNAI) PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 143,147,148,294,323,324,325, 342,355,435,333,353 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES ACT. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER In these petitions, the Advocates have challenged the proceedings in CC No.332/2015 on the file of the 17th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru (Spl. Court CBI Cases) for the offences punishable under Section 149, read with 143, 147, 148, 294,. 323, 324, 325, 342 , 355 , 435, 333, 353, 506 of ipc and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Properties Act. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of these petitions are as follows: a) An unfortunate incident occurred at the City Civil Court Complex in Bengaluru, resulting in multiple first information reports (FIRs) being filed against the police personnel, members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB) and media personnel. The AAB and the Advocates, alleging that the local police conducting investigation was not fair and impartial, petitioned this Court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, this Court declined the request, prompting the AAB to seek relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court which eventually acceded to the request and transferred the investigation to the CBI. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS b) The CBI registered the following five first information reports: Five FIRs were registered by the C.B.I:- 1. RC No.7(S)/2013 and RC No.8(S)/2013 were registered on the basis of the two crimes registered at the behest of the Police. 2. RC No.9(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of Crime No.206/2013 registered on the complaint of the Registrar, City Civil Court. 3. RC No.10(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of the Crime No.222/2012, on the Complaint of Advocates' Association. 4. RC No.11(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of one of the Complaints lodged by the Media. 3. The CBI after conducting investigation submitted separate charge sheets in relation to offences alleged against the petitioners - Advocates in RC No.7(S)/2013 and RC No.8(S)/2013. The learned Magistrate upon perusing the charge sheet materials took cognizance of the aforesaid offences prompting the petitioners to file these petitions. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 4. Sri Amar Corea, learned counsel for the petitioners argued as follows: 4.1. There is no legally admissible evidence that is forthcoming in the charge sheet materials against any of the petitioners accused herein and the entire case of the prosecution revolves on the alleged statement of the injured victims/police personnel / media personnel and there is no identification of the petitioners - accused who are unknown persons to the complainant allegedly involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence to prima facie proceed against the petitioners - accused, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of law. In support, reliance is placed upon: i. RP Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388 ii. Sathish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2012)13 SCC 614 iii. Gopalkrishnan v. Sadanand Nail and Ors. (2005)1 SCC 85 iv. Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India (2011) 2 SCC 490 v. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 vi. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749. 5. In response, Sri S Vijayshankar, Learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant's counsel argued as follows: 5.1. The entire incident which has given rise to the present proceedings involve disputed questions of facts, which will have to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS be decided during the course of a full-fledged trial before the trial court. As admitted by the petitioners themselves in their petitions particularly at paragraph 14 in Crl.P. No.503/2016, the charge sheet is based on the photographs available to the investigating officer. Further, it is false to contend that no overt acts were attributed to any of the petitioners. In this regard, the charge sheet material filed by the prosecution manifestly and glaringly highlights the overt acts on the part of these petitioners. At page No.111 in Crl.P.503/2016 a detailed account of overt acts done by the petitioners have been given. 5.2. Similarly, in Crl.P. No.502/2016 at page No.111 to 113 overt acts have been described in detail. However, these are matters to be examined by the court below during a full-fledged trial. The ground urged by the petitioners in this regard is beyond the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5.3. The complainant and charge sheet witnesses have clearly identified the petitioners and they have given a detailed account of the role played by each of the petitioners in the commission of offences. The grounds urged by the petitioners are contrary to records. 5.4. The petitioners have raised the issue of not holding test identification parade in the entire petition and the written note filed by the petitioners except highlighting the fact of not conducting the test identification parade no other valid ground which could be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been raised. The Memo - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS dated 15-12-2023 filed by the petitioners regarding the test identification is not supported by an affidavit. No value can be attached to submissions based on such a Memo. 5.5. With regard to the ground of not holding test identification parade, the respondent submits that the said ground is frivolous and legally unsustainable and a mere ruse to invoke the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5.6. The Respondent submits that the petitioners are contending that merely because no test identification parade has been held, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Such a proposition has been negated by various high courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgements. If the proposition canvassed by the petitioners is accepted, then as a corollary if the test identification is held the accused are liable for conviction. 5.7. The test identification parade is governed by Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the procedure for conducting the test identification parade. The test identification cannot be demanded as a matter of right. There is nothing in law to contend that a test identification parade is statutory or a fundamental right. Hence, not conducting a test identification parade does not confer the right to seek quashing of the proceedings. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions: i. Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191; - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS ii. Malkhansingh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 2669 iii. Rajesh and another v. State of Haryana, (2021) 1 SCC 118 6. The learned counsel for the respondent - CBI admitted that the charge sheet materials disclose the role of each of the accused involved in commission of the offences alleged and the same is substantiated by the statement of the charge sheet witnesses. When the charge sheet materials disclose the commission of the offences alleged, the veracity of the allegations can be gone into only at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. 7. The Issue for consideration in present matter is whether the petitioners can be prosecuted in the absence of substantive evidence to establish that they were involved in commission of the offence alleged against them. 8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to the decisions relied upon by the petitioner. 8.1 In the case of D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "7. There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation. But nevertheless, the police is entitled to show photographs to confirm whether the investigation is going on in the right direction. But in the instant case, it appears that the investigating officer - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS procured the album containing the photographs with the names written underneath and showed this album to the eyewitnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. The procedure adopted by the police is not justified under law as it will affect fair and proper investigation and may sometimes lead to a situation where wrong persons are identified as assailants. During the course of the investigation, if the witness had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the investigating officer shall not first show a single photograph but should show more than one photograph of the same person, if available. If the suspect is available for identification or for video identification, the photograph shall never be shown to the witness in advance." 8.2. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490, the Apex Court observed as follows: "41. It is a well-settled principle that in the absence of any independent corroboration like TIP held by the Judicial Magistrate, the evidence of eyewitnesses as to the identification of the appellant-accused for the first time before the trial court generally cannot be accepted. As explained in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , that if the case is supported by other materials, identification of the accused in the dock for the first time would be permissible subject to confirmation by other corroborative evidence, which are lacking in the case on hand except for A-1 and A-3. … 50. It is clear that identification of accused persons by a witness in the dock for the first time though permissible but cannot be given credence without further corroborative evidence. Though some of the witnesses identified some of the accused in the dock as mentioned above without corroborative evidence - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS the dock identification alone cannot be treated as substantial evidence, though it is permissible." 8.3. In the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court elucidated upon the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and issued guidelines in relation exercise of authority thereunder, as follows: "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 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 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 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 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 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." 9. The legal principles established in the above referred decisions can be summarized as hereunder: (a) During investigation, showing photographs of suspects to witnesses must be followed using fair practices to avoid wrongful identification. The police must present multiple photographs and avoid showing a single photograph in advance. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (b) Dock Identification: Identification of accused persons in court for the first time (dock identification) is permissible but holds limited evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence, such as a Test Identification Parade (TIP) or other supporting material. i. Dock identification without corroborative evidence cannot serve as substantial proof for convicting the accused; ii. Corroboration by other materials is essential for admissibility and credibility of identification evidence. (c) The inherent powers can be exercised by this court to prevent abuse of the process of the law or to secure justice in the following cases: (i) Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offense. (ii) Where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence warranting investigation. (iii) Where uncontroverted allegations and evidence fail to disclose the commission of an offense. (iv) Investigation of such offenses without the Magistrate's approval is barred. (v) Allegations that are inherently improbable or absurd do not justify proceedings. (vi) Where legal provisions expressly bar the proceedings or provide alternate remedies. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (vii) Criminal proceedings instituted with malicious intent or personal vendetta are liable to be quashed. 10. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals the following enumerated facts: "Police personnel were assigned for the production of the accused, Sri Janardhan Reddy, a former Minister, before the CBI Court at the City Civil Court premises in Bengaluru on December 3, 2012. The situation escalated when media personnel arrived, triggering objections from some lawyers. Chaos ensued, leading to the imposition of Section 144 of the Cr.PC by the Commissioner of Police around 10:45 a.m." 11. At approximately 10:45 a.m., Janardhan Reddy was presented before the Court, followed by his shifting to Boring Hospital for a medical examination at 11:45 a.m. Subsequent clashes erupted around the Court complex at 11:50 a.m., resulting in the Assistant Commissioner of Police ordering a lathi charge to disperse the agitated advocates. By 12:00 noon, the Police Commissioner arrived and ordered another lathi charge. At 12:15 p.m., while the Deputy Commissioner of Police was attempting to calm the advocates, he was hit by a stone thrown by one of them, leading to his injury and hospitalization. During this time, the deployed police personnel entered the Court premises, allegedly assaulting advocates and causing damage to parked vehicles, actions that occurred between 12:00 noon and 1:30 p.m. when they were providing security. 12. A further reference to FIR and charge sheet may be made, which reads as follows: - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS "16.4 Based on the prayers of the Advocates Association, Bangalore, the entire investigation was entrusted to the CBI by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 27.08.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.7159/2013 (arising out of SLP © No.22604 of 2012. The SLP was filed by the Advocates Association, Bangalore). Copy of the order is enclosed. 16.11 Investigation revealed that Shri Janardhana Reddy was to be produced in the CBI Court at 11 AM. The convoy of vehicles taking Shri Janardhana Reddy left Halasurgate Police Station at about 10.45 AM and he was produced before the CBI Court at 11 AM. Enroute, the media persons and Reddy's followers were creating tensed situation as they were coming along the vehicles on either side of the convoy. The Court complex and the roads were fully crowded with lawyers, general onlookers, media persons, etc. It was proposed to take Shri Reddy through the entrance in the basement (nearer to Karnataka Bank ATM on the western side) to the Special Court facing the northern side. This arrangement was made3 to ensure that no stranger comes in close proximity with the accused. 16.12 Investigation revealed that the media personnel reached the court premises well before 10 AM (between 8.30 AM and 9.15 AM) and located themselves near the entrance of the CBI Court in the basement facing the Government Arts College ground. however, they were advised by Shri Jitendernath, Asst. Commr. of Police, Halsurgate to move towards Gate No.1, the main entrance . At about 10 AM, some of the media persons came back and installed their equipment facing the CBI Court from Arts College ground side via the thin median. Advocates, who started arriving the court for their regular work as well as out of curiosity on account of production of Janardhana Reddy, protested the presence of media persons near the court. Some of the advocates even opposed presence of media persons even in the places designated for them (Gate No.1). however, the Police pacified the agitated advocates and stood between the two group. Media were given protection with metal barricades. Barricades were also placed at Karnataka Bank ATM in order to prevent eh surging crowd from nearing the accused. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 16.13 Investigation revealed that at about 10.45 AM, the accused Shri Galli Janardhan Reddy was brought to the Court premises. As the accused Janardhana Reddy was getting down from the vehicle, media persons started taking photo/video and some objects were thrown on the media persons from the advocates side. However, the media persons continued to carry on their work from within the barricades. Advocates objected the presence of media personnel and started throwing stones towards the media persons. The Police rushed and pushed back the advocates towards the ATM. Inspite of all these commotion, Shri Janardhana Reddy was escorted through the entrance near the ATM (in the Western side) to the CBI Court (in the Northern side). 16.14.Investigation reveled that some women media personnel who had gone near the ATM for better coverage of the event were abused by advocates. When they were rescued by the Police, they went back to their side. The skirmishes continued between the advocates and media persons. There were manhandling of media persons by the advocates and given their little strength, the media persons retreated beyond the barricades and retaliated by throwing stones. Soon the stone throwing by the advocates was directed towards the Police also. The Police tried to persuade them to go to their designated place (in front of the main entrance). As the media personnel did not heed to the persuasion by the Police and continued to stay put in the northern side, some of the advocates started pushing them. In this process some of the tripod fitting of the media persons fell down. Plastic chairs were also thrown on the media persons. The agitated media men went to the eastern side of the court premises and sat in dharna on the road leading to the Dy. Commissioner's Office, protesting the behavior of the advocates. 16.15.Investigation revealed that at about 11.45 AM, when the court formalities were over, Shri Janardhana Reddy was taken to Bowring Hospital for medical checkup. Dr.Ramesh, DCP (Central) having jurisdiction over Court premises, Arts College Road/ Nrupatunga Road, K R Circle and routes leading to Bowring Hospital, escorted Shri Janardhana Reddy along with few CBI Officers and Andhra Police to Bowring Hospital for medical Check up. Shri Jitendranath, - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS jurisdictional ACP also accompanied the CBI officers to the hospital. 16.16 Investigation revealed that after Galli Janardhan Reddy left the Court Complex at about 11.45 AM, clashes broke out in the front side of Court Complex near the CBI Court (northern side of the complex, facing Government Arts College grounds). The advocates started abusing the media personnel, and when the police intervened the advocates started abusing policemen too. The fight between the advocates and the media personnel, which started in front of the CBI Court then extended to the main entrance (Western side). The Police tried to separate media persons from the advocates and to get them away from the court premises. 16.17 Investigation revealed that the advocates from the top floors of the Court Complex started throwing flowerpots, chairs, benches and glasses towards the police, public and media persons. As the advocates could not be persuaded/controlled I the ground floor, those advocates started throwing whatever items available with them. Shri Gachinakatti, ACP and Shri Shekhar, ACP warned the advocates through mega phones announcing them as unlawful assembly and also announced that Section 144 Cr.P.C was in force. However, the advocates did not disperse and continued their unlawful activities. Hence, there was no other way for the police except resorting to Lathi charge to disperse the unlawful assembly. Hence, Shri GAchinakatti, ACP ordered for a lathcharge to disburse the violent advocates. It was at about 11.50 AM. The advocates ran for the shelter in order to escape from the police lathi charge. The advocates were found running towards Northern Main steps and flag post and Police Out Post. Other advocates took position in all 6 floors of the Court Complex of the Northern side and started throwing stones, cement hollow blocks, flowerpots, chairs, benches, tube lights etc., causing injuries to the Policemen who were standing on the ground. 16.18.Investigation revealed that the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City had issued a proceedings U/s 144 Cr.P.C giving effect from 10.45 AM on 02.03.12 to till midnight on 08.03.12 prohibiting gathering of people more than five and to carry any weapon in limits of several Police Stations adjoining the Bangalore City Civil Court Complex. Immediately after - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS promulgating prohibitory order, the senior officers instructed the women police officials to go to the corner near the Juges' entry gat for safety Thereafter, clashes between advocates and media persons went very violent and the Policemen who came in between were also attacked by the advocates. The advocates abused the police in filthy language. They told that the police were gos, the Court is of the advocates and why the police dogs came inside the Court etc. The advocates namely Shri Manjunath (A-1) and others have used bad words against the women police telling the women police are prostitutes and if they give money they will come and also they showed some obscene gesture towards the women police. The lady advocates also abused the police. As the situation was going out of control, the Police chased the warring groups by using minimum force of lathi charge. 16.19.Investigation revealed that Dr.Ramesh, DCP and Shri Jitendranath, ACP who had gone to bowring Hospital along with the convoy of Galli Janardhan Reddy, returned back to the Court Complex at about 12.30 PM after hearing the news of unrest and straight went to the reception counter of Northern side Court. Dr.Ramesh, DCP and Shri Jitendranath, ACP had also received information that the Court Constables, who were on duty in different floors were being confined and assaulted by the advocates. The two officers were in the process of rescuing them by visiting various places. Within few seconds the DCP was assaulted on his forehead by the advocates and he was found bleeding and escorted by Jitenderanath and sent to the hospital for further treatment. Since G Ramesh, DCP sustained injury, the Commissioner of Police had deputed Shri Ravi Kanthe Gowda, IPS, DCP, North East to take over the situation under control. 16.20.Investigation revealed that Shri Jyothi Prakash Mirji, IPS, then Police Commissioner, Bangalore City reached the court premises around 12.10 Noon. Before his arrival already Shri Gachhinnagatti, ACP had ordered lathi-charge as the advocates started coming towards Gate No.2 causing damage to the vehicles and setting fire to the parked vehicles. Before lathi-charge, Shri Gachhinnagatti, ACP warned them through mega phone that it was an unlawful assembly and asked them to disperse, but they did not disperse and started pelting stones, hollow bricks, chairs and benches towards police. The stone throwing continued from all floors of the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS court, as a result the police persons sustained injuries. As the situation was like this, there was no other option, except resorting to mild Lathi charge at about 12.35 PM resulting in injuries to some of the advocates. The advocates were taken to different hospitals for treatment. 16.21.Investigation revealed that at about 12.45 PM about 300-400 advocates came and started assaulting police and they requested for reinforcement. To secure the Police the Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) went towards South Gate of the Court Complex. In the stone pelting by advocates, one of the Policemen got injury on his chest and he fell down. He was taken to hospital in an ambulance for treatment. Thereafter, the Police Officers and staff chased the advocates and they ran inside the Court Complex. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) instructed all the police to come to Gate No.2 and all the police assembled at Gate No.2. Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, IPS, DCP North East Division, through megaphone, asked the advocates to stop their violence and stop damaging the Government and Public Property. He had also contacted Shri A.P.Ranganatha, Advocate, General Secretary, Advocates' Association and requested him to tell all advocate friends to stop their violence. He also informed him to release the Court Constables who were trapped inside the Court. inspite of this personal request Shri Ranganath did not turn up and even he did not attend the calls made on his mobile phone. A group of 150 advocates set fire to the police and public vehicles parked in front of the Police Out Post. On seeing this Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP announced through megaphone asking the advocates not to indulge in violence. As the situation went out of control, Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP ordered for firing tear-gas shells and thereafter ordered for Lathi charge at about 1.30 PM. During the Lathi Charge, some of the advocates went inside the Court Complex and some of the advocates had continued their violence. Shri Ramesh Babu, ACP who escorted the Hon'ble High Court Judge was chased by a group of advocates and manhandled. He was rescued by Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP. 16.22. Investigation revealed that at about 3.30 PM there was a breaking news in the local channel that two policemen died due to attack by advocates. At about 4 PM, there was a rumour that near Kaveri Bhavan compound two police were - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS killed by advocates. At the same time about 50-60 advocates had set fire on the police vehicles at Gate No.1 near Kaveri Bhavan Due to the tense situation, Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP bad announced through Mega Phone asking the advocates to stop their violence, but as they did not stop their violence, he ordered for release of tear gas operation and also ordered for Lathi charge at about 4.30 PM. After that the situation was brought under control and arrangements were made to all of the advocates to go to their house in a peaceful manner through K.R. Circle and Mysore Bank Circle. 16.23. Investigation revealed that due to the violent acts of advocates, 94 police and 05 media persons got injured. The OB vans belonging to media persons were damaged by the advocates. Investigation further disclosed that the advocates who were nearly 79 in number formed an unlawful assembly and committed the offences such as Voluntarily caused injuries to the media persons, Voluntarily caused injuries to the Police Personnel on duty, Prevented the Policemen from discharging their official duty, Damaged Public Properties such the Police Outpost and Police Motor Cycle, Mischief by setting fire a Police Motor Cycle and Damaged media vehicles, etc." 13. Furthermore, CW1, the complainant in his further statement on being asked as to how names of 24 advocates were included in the FIR registered by him, he stated that the said names were given by some of his subordinates, who were on duty near Gate No.1 on 2.3.2012 and that he is also having knowledge about some of the Advocates as he had worked as police Inspector in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police at Halsur Gate Police Station, and that City Civil Complex comes under the jurisdiction of he said police station. On being shown the photos of one of the advocates who was making vulgar gestures, he identified the said person as Sri Sathisha, and the two persons carrying stones as Sri Pradeep Kumar and Ramesha Y R. He has - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS also identified four other advocates who have allegedly indulged in violence. He further stated that the photographs were taken from the video coverage done by the office of the Commissioner of Police. 14. CWs.2, 3, 4 and several others in their statements stated that they cannot identify the individuals who indulged in violence as they were large in number. 15. CWs.2, 21, 55, 56 and 63 stated in their statement that they can identify the individuals who indulged in violence, if they were shown the said individuals. 16. CWs.1, 25, 31, 50 and several others have stated that they can identify individuals who indulged in violence from photos and videos captured by the office of the Commissioner of Police. 17. The statements made by CW1 relying on information provided by subordinates are hearsay evidence and inadmissible in law unless corroborated by those subordinates through their statements. The prosecution has neither stated as to who are the subordinates and who provided information to CW1 nor their statements have been recorded. Further, the photographic identification is impermissible unless the authenticity, source and chain of custody of the photographs is established. Presenting multiple photographs of similar individuals is necessary to avoid undue influence or suggestiveness and failure to follow these procedures renders the identification invalid as observed by the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik and Ors. (supra). 18. Furthermore, the Apex Court has consistently emphasised that test identification parades are a crucial piece of corroborative evidence to strengthen the trustworthiness of testimonies of witnesses identifying those accused who are strangers to them, more so, when the prosecution witnesses has had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused or the commission of the offences alleged. In the case of Jayan v. State of Kerala, (2021) 20 SCC 38, it was observed as follows: “15. It is well settled that T.I Parade is a part of investigation and it is not a substantive evidence. The question of holding T.I Parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness. In some cases, the Court may be impressed with testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality. In such cases, the testimony of such a witness can be believed.” 19. The above ratio was again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of P Sasikumar v. The State Rep by. the Inspector of Police, 2024 INSC 474. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 20. In the case at hand, a bare perusal of the charge sheet itself indicates that the prosecution or complainant witnesses could not have managed to catch but a fleeting glimpse of the accused in the overwhelming chaos and commotion that unfolded on the fateful day. Such identification in the absence of a test identification parade cannot be sustained. 21. Therefore, the statements of CWs.1, 25, 31, 50, 57, 58, 63, 65, 67, 68, 106, 106, 199, 200 and 201, who identified the accused on the basis of photos/videos have no evidentiary value. 22. Therefore, where the matter at hand involves a case where the complainant/prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused-petitioners in a test identification parade, and further state that they may be able to identify the accused from the photographs and videos captured by the office of the Commissioner of Police, the same cannot be sustained unless the source, authenticity and chain of custody of such photographs is established. Furthermore, as observed earlier, failure to provide multiple photographs of similar individuals shall render any identification of the accused in such circumstances, invalid. 23. Although not a substantive right, the absence of test identification parade in the present circumstances is fatal to the investigation into the offences committed, as the eye-witnesses could not have possibly been able to verifiably establish the real identities of the culprits. Failure to have conducted such a test, in - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS the present circumstances, shall lead to the defeat of translation of the material produced by the prosecution into evidence at the stage of trial. 24. Thus, in light of the fact that even if the material on record adduced by prosecution were to remain unrebutted, the prosecution could not possibly establish a conviction, the present petitions are allowed. Accordingly, I order the following: ORDER i. The instant criminal petitions are allowed. ii. In Crl. P. No 7917/2015, the chargesheet filed in CC No. 332/2015 in the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as against the petitioner therein is hereby quashed. iii. In Crl .P. No.502/2016, the order of taking cognizance dated 05.01.2015 passed by XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, in R.C. No. 7(S)/2013 and RC No. 8(S)/2013 and the entire proceedings arising therefrom in CC No 332/2015, as against the petitioners therein, are hereby quashed. iv. In Crl.P. No. 503/2016, the order of taking cognizance dated 05.01.2015 passed by XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, in R.C. No. 7(S)/2013 and RC No. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:8301 CRL.P No. 7917 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 8(S)/2013 and the entire proceedings arising therefrom in CC No 332/2015, as against the petitioners therein, are hereby quashed. v. In Crl.P. No. 5768/2016, the additional chargesheet filed in CC No. 332/2015 in the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as against the petitioners therein, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4