- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 8435 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDARAJU T SON OF SRI THANGARAJU AGED 46 YEARS RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE BANGALORE CENTRE NO.01, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR YELAHANKA POLICE STATION BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560064. 5. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560064. 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1, R4 TO R6; SRI.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 22.12.2021 BEARING No.JeSaKAa(Na) /JaPa/ CR- 39/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner and President of District Level Caste Verification Committee and consequent FIR in Cr.No.65/2022 of Yelahanka PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(q) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) (Amendment Ordinance) 2014 and Sections 198, 177, 181, 196 and 420 IPC. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is a law abiding citizen. He is a practicing advocate in Devanahalli and Bengaluru Courts. Since 3-4 generations, his forefathers, whose ancestors are from Orissa came and settled in Sonnappanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru. Both father and grandfather of petitioner were working as stone breakers PÀ®Äè PÀÄnÖUÀgÀÄ and they have also worked for Gorur Dam. They were also working in stone quarry situated at Sonnappanahali, Bettahalasur Stone quarry. They are called as Kallu - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Kuttigaru and Vaddaru. Since generations they are known to belong to Bhovi caste which comes under Scheduled caste. They speak Colloquial Telugu language, which is mixture of Telugu and Oriya only at home. They read and write in Kannada. None of petitioner's parents or grand parents are literates. 2.1 Petitioner was admitted to the school by the Primary School teacher in the year 1982-83. He noted the caste of petitioner as Mudaliyar. However, neither petitioner nor his ancestors belong to Mudaliyar committee. When it was brought to the notice of the Head Master while issuing the Transfer Certificate, his caste was changed to Bhovi. Neither petitioner nor his parents belong to Mudaliyar committee. In all his school records, his caste continued to be noted as Bhovi. Based on said records, the Tahsildar has issued caste certificate of petitioner as belonging to Bhovi. He is not responsible for mentioning his caste as Bhovi. However, he truly belong to Bhovi caste. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 2.2 The caste certificate once issued would be valid only for a period of 5 years. Based on the earlier caste certificate, petitioner has secured another caste certificate dated 22.11.2001. Petitioner in his capacity as an advocate represented one Devaraju in a counter case filed by one Vijaykumar of Sonnappanahalli in SC.No.578/2017. In that case, Vijaykumar was convicted. Petitioner contested the Gram Panchayat election against the posts reserved for Scheduled caste and Vijaykumar contested as a General candidate. Petitioner refused to form a syndicate with him Ultimately, Vijaykumar lost the election. Enraged by the same, to take revenge, after collecting certain documents under Right to Information Act, he approached Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate to initiate action against the petitioner. After making preliminary enquiry, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate submitted its report to DCVC, Bengaluru Urban. Petitioner appeared before the DCVC and reiterated his stand. However, by order dated 22.11.2021, the DCVC held that petitioner belong to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Bhoya community and ordered for cancellation of his caste certificate. Based on the same, the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate filed complaint against the petitioner. It is registered in Cr.No.65/2022 which is being challenged in the present petition on the following among other: GROUNDS (i) The order of the DCVC is not sustainable and consequent complaint and FIR are also without any authority of law. DCVC has no power to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner. The caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner is based on Government documents maintained at an undisputed point of time. There are no documents to show that petitioner belong to Bhoya caste. The conclusions arrived at by the DCVC that the ancestors of petitioner came from Tamil Nadu has no basis. (ii) Without prejudice to the above contents, petitioner claims that he belong to Bhovi community and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Annexure-H caste certificate was issued based on previous school records and therefore, petitioner cannot be said to have obtained false certificate and committed the offence. Even otherwise, complaint based on Ordinance of 2014 is not sustainable, since it has lapsed. The alleged offence said to have been committed on 22.11.2001 and the Ordinance was introduced on 04.07.2014 and it has lapsed and hence, the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Smt. Yamuna Vs. The State (Smt Yamuna)1 (ii) Haridevanandaji Rao Pawar Vs The State of Karnataka.( Haridevanandaji Rao Pawar)2 (iii) Sri Ramachandra Vs The State of Karnataka (Sri Ramachandra)3 (iv) Smt. K Susheela Vs The State of Karnataka and another (Smt K Susheela)4 1 Crl.R.P.Nos.989/2012 C/w 988/2012 dt. 11.01.2022 2 Crl.P.No.2813/2008 dt. 04.12.2009 3 Crl.P.No.11591/2013 dt. 02.06.2017 4 Crl.A.No.1361/2021 dt. 01.10.2021 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 4. On the other hand, learned Special counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing other respondents would submit that petitioner originally hailing from Tamil Nadu and belong to Bhoya community which comes under category-I in Tamil Nadu. However, by giving false information, he secured caste certificate as belonging to Bhovi caste from Tahsildar, Yelahanka. After coming to know about the same, the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate conducted enquiry and finding prima facie material approached the DCVC. After hearing the petitioner, DCVC cancelled the caste certificate of petitioner and referred it to the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate to take criminal action. In turn police inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement filed a complaint. Based on the same, case is registered and investigation is taken up. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court and secured interim order and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 thereby stalled investigation and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of his arguments learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has relied upon the following decisions: i) Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others (Bir Singh)5 ii) Smt. Maniyamma and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and others (Smt. Maniyamma)6 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. During the course of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the forefather of the petitioner were originally from Orissa and they have migrated to Karnataka since more than 3 generations back. The Caste certificate secured by the petitioners would be in force for a period of 5 years and lapse. He would further submits the charge leveled against the 5 (2018) 10 SCC 312 6 WP No.7975/2022 dt. 05.03.2024 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 petitioner are based on SC/ST and (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014 ('Ordinance 2014' for short) and same has lapsed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against under the said provisions. 8. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that petitioner is not originated from Karnataka and his forefather have migrated from Tamil Nadu. He belonged to Bhoya caste. In Karnataka Bhoya caste comes under Category-I. However, he has secured caste certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste and availed the benefit of it. Based on the enquiry conducted by the officials of Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, DCVC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner. Consequently, complaint came to be filed by the Police Inspector, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate and criminal case is registered in Cr.No.65/2022. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the Ordinance 2014 has lapsed is concerned, it is submitted by him that the said Ordinance 2014 has received the assent of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 President and become Law and therefore, it is incorrect to state that it has lapsed. 9. It is not in dispute that petitioner has secured caste certificate dated 18.06.1991 and 22.11.2001 as belonging to Bhovi which comes under Scheduled Caste. Though in the complaint, it is stated that the ancestors of petitioner had migrated from Tamil Nadu, he claims that they have migrated from Orissa. Whether they have migrated from Tamil Nadu or Orissa, fact remains that they are not originated from Karnataka. Consequently, as held in Bir Singh referred to supra, person belonging to SC/ST in one State cannot be deemed to be SC/ST person in State of his migration for purpose of employment or education. Expressions "in relation to State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution" used in Articles 341 and 342 mean that benefits of reservation stand confined to geographical territories of State/UT in respect of which lists of SC/ST have been notified by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342. Further held any expansion/deletion of the list of SCs/STs notified by President by any authority, except Parliament would be against constitutional mandate. Further more, unquestionable principle of interpretation is that interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions must be harmoniously construed to avoid making any provisions nugatory or redundant. 9.1 It was further held that parameters by which caste/race is recognized as SC/ST in State/UT - said determination restricted to specified/particular area/districts/UTs since judged by standards of educational, social backwardness, etc. races or tribes may not stand on the same footing throughout the State. At the para 24 of the judgment, it was held that whenever States' reorganisation had taken place in the past, Parliament had exercised its powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) and provided for specific Castes/Tribes that were entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Castes and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Scheduled Tribes in relation to the reorganised States/Union Territories. The Scheme of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) and (Scheduled Tribes) Orders makes it clear that Parliament’s intention was to extend the benefits of reservation in relation to the States/Union Territories only to the castes, races or tribes as mentioned in the Presidential Orders. 10. In Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs in State of Maharashtra Vs. Union of India (Action Committee)7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a person belonging to SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or ordinary resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education, etc. - Stand taken to that effect by Government of India in its communication dated 22.03.1977 and in subsequent communications affirmed". 7 (1994) 5 SCC 244, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 11. It is further held that "On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the President is limited to specifying the castes or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste or tribe but save for that limited purpose the notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. The castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it is specified. Considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 backward classes in a given Sate would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in the State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. 12. So far as the contention of the petitioner, that the offence alleged against the petitioner punishable under Section 3(1)(q) of amendment Ordinance 2014 and the said ordinance has lapsed and as such, he could not be proceeded against. After the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by DCVC, directing cancellation of the caste certificate of petitioner, a copy of it was ordered to be sent to the Tahsildar, with the direction to cancel the caste certificate. A copy of it was also sent to the Directorate of Civil Enforcement. In turn the Police Inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bengaluru headquarter has filed the first information on 03.03.2022 and based on it, the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (POA) Act (Amendment) Ordinance of 2014 and Sections 198, 177, 181, 196 and 420 IPC. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 13. Though the 2014 Amendment Ordinance of 2014, lapsed during General Elections 2014, it was replaced by the SC/ST (POA) (Amendment) Act, 2015, and as on the date of filing complaint, it was applicable. It appears by mistake, instead of referring to the Amendment Act of 2015, in the FIR the Amendment Ordinance of 2014 was referred. Having regard to the fact that the act committed by the petitioner since in the school records, claiming to be coming under the SC category and securing certificates during 1991 and 2001, and also on the basis of it, contesting election for the post, which was reserved for SC candidate, which continued till his certificate came to be cancelled, the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 is applicable and solely on the ground that in the FIR, the 2014 Ordinance is referred to, petitioner cannot claim quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the caste certificate secured by the petitioner was valid for a period of five years and as such as on the date of the enquiry, the caste certificate secured by him was not in force and therefore he ought to not have been proceeded against. It is not in dispute that petitioner secured Caste certificate dated 18.06.1991 at Annexure-G and 22.11.2001 at Annexure- H. It is also not in dispute that petitioner secured the caste certificate as belonging to Hindu Bhovi, which comes under Scheduled Caste category in Karnataka. In fact, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Bhovi and therefore, he has rightly taken the said certificate. 15. While Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Act 1990, makes provision for reservation of certain post during appointment to any office in a civil service or to a civil post in the State of Karnataka, Section 4A provides for issue of caste certificate or income and caste - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 certificate. Sub-section (1) of Section 4A provides that those persons belonging Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe are required to take caste certificate, whereas those candidates who belong to other backward classes are required to take income and caste certificate. 16. In other words, persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are entitled for the benefit irrespective of their income, whereas persons belonging to other backward classes should necessarily below certain income level to claim the benefit in appointments and admission to educational institutions. Here one should make a distinction between the fact that for SC /ST candidates income is not a criteria, whereas the same is a necessary requirement with those who want to take benefit under other backward categories. Consequently, as per Rule 3-C (i) the caste certificate issued to persons belonging to SC/ST would be valid, until it is cancelled, whereas, as per (2) of the said Rule, the income and caste certificate issued to the candidates belonging to other - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 backward classes would be valid for a period of five years. Since the criteria to give benefit to other backward classes is their income, it appeal to reason that it is issued for a limited period of five years, after which it is necessary to review the financial condition of such person to claim benefit of reservation. However, the same is not with persons belonging to SC/ST candidates as the disability suffered by them are by birth and it continued to haunt them, irrespective of their financial condition or status achieved due to their education or employment. 17. This provision is required to be read with Rule 5 which also deals with the period for which the validity certificate should be referred to the Caste and Income Verification Committee. It provides that the validity certificate issued by the Caste Verification Committee belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall remain valid for the purpose of employment, until it is cancelled or until the date on which the candidate changes his religious faith, whichever is earlier. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 18. Similarly, the validity certificate issued by the Caste and Income Verification Committee in favour of a person belonging to Category-I of Backward Classes shall remain valid for the purpose of employment as long as his caste enjoys reservation without applying creamy layer criteria or until it is cancelled, whichever is earlier. 19. Since the petitioner has secured Caste certificate as belonging to Hindu Bhovi, which comes under SC category in Karnataka, he cannot claim that as on the date of verification by the DCVC, his caste certificate was not in force. 20. It is also argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that as per Section 4-C (2) of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act 1990, only when the person who has obtained caste certificate or income and caste certificate, approach the DCVC for validity certificate, it gets Jurisdiction to examine its authenticity. Otherwise, it - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 has no jurisdiction to examine its validity and to cancel it, if found to be not valid. It is pertinent to note that under Section 4-C, the State Government is required to constitute one or more Verification Committees for each District, which are popularly called as District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC), for verification of caste certificate issued under Section 4-A or income and caste certificate issued under Section 4-B of the Act of 1990. Its power to verify and declare any caste certificate or income and caste certificate as valid or invalid is not dependent upon the person who have availed such certificates or the employer or the educational institution where he has availed seat, for their verification. 21. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4-C, it is empowered to verify any such caste certificate or income and caste certificate. Sub-section (2) is enabling provision for the candidates or the Appointing authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the university or educational institution to make an application - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 for their verification. The reading of Section 4-C makes it evident that the DCVC is having inherent jurisdiction to examine any caste certificate or income and caste certificate as the case may be and declare it to be valid or invalid as the case may be. There may be cases where some third persons may bring it to the notice of the DCVC or the Directorate of Civil Enforcement Authority may also bring it to the notice of DCVC about the complaints of securing false caste certificate or income and caste certificate, in which event also the DCVC is empowered to examine the same. 22. As evident from the impugned order dated 22.11.2021, the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, on receipt of complaint about the false caste certificate secured by the petitioner made enquiry and reported the same to the DCVC, Bangalore City and based on the evidence so collected by the officials of Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, the DCVC after conducting Enquiry held that petitioner is guilty of securing false caste - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 certificate and directed to cancel it and also sent a copy to the Directorate of Civil Enforcement. Based on it, the police inspector of Directorate of Civil Enforcement has filed the complaint. 23. Section 5 of the Act of 1990, penalises the appointing authority or school authorities making admission to a university or educational institution, in contravention of the Act and Rules. Section 5-A penalises for securing false caste certificate or income and caste certificate as the case may be. Similarly, Section 5-B prescribe penalty for issuing a false caste certificate or income and caste certificate. Section 6 makes cognizance of such offence. Section 6-A prescribe penalty for those persons who abets the offences under the Act. Section 6-D makes it clear that the provisions of the Act of 1990 override other laws. Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act of 2015, prescribes punishment for giving any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 24. It is pertinent to note that petitioner is a practicing advocate. In Spl.C.No.497/2014, the copy of the judgment of which is Annexure-J1 Vijay Kumar and others were prosecuted and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 354, 427 r/w Section 149 IPC and 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act in respect of an incident dated 01.08.2014. In respect of the same incident, PWs-1, 3 to 6, and two others in Spl.C.No.497/2014 were prosecuted and convicted in SC.No.578/2017 on the file of the same Court. In the latter case, petitioner herein represented the accused persons and conducted their defence. Both judgments were dated 18.01.2020. It appears after the said judgments, the opponent party approached the Directorate of Civil Enforcement and on conducting enquiry, it was found that petitioner is a migrant from Tamil Nadu and belongs to Bhoya Community which comes - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 under Category-I, but obtained a false caste certificate as belonging to Bhovi, which comes under Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the DCVC held enquiry and found that the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, who issued the caste certificate to the petitioner did not verify the records of the ancestors of petitioner and based on false report has issued the caste certificate and accordingly, it came to be cancelled after which, as a consequence, the criminal proceedings were initiated. 25. As rightly submitted by the learned Special counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the caste certificate issued to him, he had an option to file appeal under Section 4-D of the Act of 1990, to approach the Commissioner/Director, Social Welfare Department. Despite drawing the attention of learned counsel for petitioner on the maintainability of the writ petition, without exhausting the appeal provision, he insisted upon - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38856 WP No. 8435 of 2022 arguing the matter on merits. Thus, both on merit and maintainability, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand. 26. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35