- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 473 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. VASIM PASHA @ WASEEM PASHA S/O. IQBAL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PEI PRESIDENT, HUNSUR TOWN, R/AT NO. 20/18, MUSLIM BLOCK, K.R. NAGARA TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001. 2. MOHAMAD KHAZA S/O. B. BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PFI SECRATORY HUSNUR TOWN, R/AT V. P. BORE, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE-570 019. 3. SADIK @ SADIQ SHARIFF S/O. MUNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT RAZAK MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-570 001. 4. SARUQ @ SHARUK S/O. SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT A LINE SHABEER NAGAR, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-570 001. 5. MAHAMAD THABREJ S/O. MOHAMED YAKUB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SDPI THALOKU PRESIDENT, R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK, MUSLIM BLACK, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-570 019. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 6. NAJIM S/O. MEER MOHIDIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT JAM JAM HOTEL OWNER, NIJAM MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-570 001. 7. AKMAL S/O. EQBAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SDPI SECRETORY, R/AT HANCHYA VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU-571 301. 8. VASIM ALIAS MOHAMED VASIM @ MOHAMMED WASEEM S/O. GOHAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT RAZAK MOHALLA, SABEER NAGARA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-570 019. 9. MUBARAK S/O. DOWLATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NIJAM MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-571 301. 10. AMZAD S/O. PEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT HOSPITAL KAVAL NIJAM MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 11. JABHI @ MOHAMMED ZABI S/O. MOHAMED GOUSE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT TAPCMS ROAD, NIJAM MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 12. MANSUR ALIAS MANSUR AHAMED S/O. ABDUL REHAMEN ALIAS MOKTHAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT MARUTHI BADAVANE, HUNSUR TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT-571 305. 13. THOSSIF ALIAS MOHAMED THOUSIFF @ TOUSIF S/O. MOHAMED RAFFI @ MOHAMMED RAFI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SABEER NAGARA, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 305. 14. SYED AKBAR S/O. A. M. MUNEER, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT V. P. BORE, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 15. PAIROZ @ FIROZ S/O. KALID, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT GANESHANAGUDI BEEDI, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 16. TANJEER S/O. LATE NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 17. SAYED KALIM S/O. LATE SYED IBRAIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT V. P. BORE, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 18. SALMAN ALIAS SALLU S/O. RAFFIQ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT LALBAN BEEDI, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 19. SALMAN S/O. ZAMEERT AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT V. P. BORE, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. 20. MUZAMIL AHMED S/O. ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT LALBAND BEEDI, HUNSURU TOWN, MYSURU-571 305. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HUNUSUR TOWN POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. SRINIVASH. L. PI POLICE OFFICER, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PI HTPS, HUNSUR TOWN PS, MYSORE - 571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NAGESHWARAPPA.K, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COGNIZANCE ORDER 05.12.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3640/2022 ARISING OUT OF THE CR.NO.186/2022 REGISTERED BY THE HUNSUR P.S., SAME IS PENDING UNDER SEC.143,341,188,268,149 OF IPC PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HUNSUR, PRESENT AT ANNEXURE-D WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 20 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: “ 1. To quash the Cognizance order 05.12.2022 passed in CC No.3640/2022 arising out of the Crime No.186/2022 registered by the Hunsur PS same is pending under Section 143, 341, 188, 268, 149 of IPC. Passed by the Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at HUNSUR. Present at Annexure-D. Wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused No.1 to 20 respectively. 2. Consequently, quash the charge sheet dated: 18.11.2022 filed by the respondent police for the offences under Section 143, 341, 188, 268, 149 of IPC. Present at Annexure-C arising out of the Crime No.186/2022 registered by the Hunsur PS same is pending as CC No.3640/2022 in the files of Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused No.1 to 20 respectively. AND/OR 3. Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit by considering the facts of this Court, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 22.09.2022, suo moto FIR in Crime No.186/2022 was registered against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 188, 268 and 341 of IPC. In pursuance of the same, investigation having been conducted, a charge sheet was filed which is currently pending in C.C.No.3640/2022 against the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners have been charged for the offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC in relation to which Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., specifically prohibits/bars taking cognizance of the said offences except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that no such complaint as mandated under Section 195 (1)(a) was given in writing prior to the impugned FIR being suo moto registered by the respondents. So also, since the remaining offences alleged against the petitioners form part of the same transaction of the offence punishable under Section 188 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 of IPC as contemplated under Section 195 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C., it is impermissible to split up the said offence. As a result of which, the impugned proceedings in relation to all the alleged offences deserve to be quashed. 5. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Rajashekarananda Swamiji Vs. State of Karnataka – W.P.No.13328/2018 dated 18.06.2021, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada against the petitioners are sustainable in law? is the question involved in this case. 2. On the basis of the complaint (Annexure-B) filed by A.K.Rajesh, Police Inspector, Mangalore Rural Police registered the first information report in Crime No.428/2014 (Annexure-C) against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (‘KPDLP Act’ for short). 3. On investigation, Mangalore Rural Police charge sheeted the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act. In the charge sheet the petitioners are shown as accused Nos.1 and 12. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore city promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWs.5 to 8. 5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences. 6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. 7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows: “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860 ); or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;” 8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction. 10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy - (1981) 2 SCC 185, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub- section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed. 6. The said judgment was followed in the case of Ravi C and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.2896/2022 dated 20.06.2022, which reads as under: “The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.338/2014, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 188 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in this petition stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, which submission is accepted by the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. 3. In the light of there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I deem it appropriate to close the proceedings by following the judgment so rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 "4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8. 5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences. 6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. 7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;" 8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. 9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction. 10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld." - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 (Emphasis supplied) 11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed." 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.388/2014 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nanjangud, Mysore, stand quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.” 7. So also, in the case of Salman and Ors. Vs. State by Hunsur Town PS - Crl.P.No.7868/2022 dated 01.09.2022, this Court held as under: “The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1100/2018 for the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 offences punishable under Sections 144, 147, 148, 149, 448, 429, 307, 188 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Smt.K.P.Yashodha for respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.5415/2022, disposed of on 25.07.2022 wherein, this Court held as follows: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2896/2022, disposed of on 20.06.2022, wherein this Court has held as follows: 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in this petition stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, which submission is accepted by the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. 3. In the light of there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I deem it appropriate to close the proceedings by following the judgment so rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8. 5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences. 6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. 7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance- - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;" 8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. 9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction. 10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed." 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.388/2014 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nanjangud, Mysore, stand quashed.” 4. The learned HCGP would not dispute the aforesaid order and the fact that it covers the case at hand on all its fours.” 4. Learned HCGP, though would refute the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is laid down by this Court (supra). - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 5. Therefore, the petition deserves to be succeed on the afore-quoted reasons rendered by this Court (supra). 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.1100/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, stand quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3640/2022 arising out of Crime No.186/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31506 CRL.P No. 473 of 2024 Judge and JMFC, Hunsur for the offences punishable Sections 143, 341, 188, 268 and 149 of IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HJ/MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4