(Prayer: This criminal petition is under Section 482 of Cr.p.c, praying to quash the fir in cr.no.17/2020 registered by the respondents as against the petitioner arraigning him as accused no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 7a, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of prevention of corruption act 1988, pending before the Learned XXIII Additional city civil and sessions judge at Bengaluru (cch-24) and to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.06.2025 filed by the respondent no.1/police in cr.no.17/2020 for the offences punishable under section 7(a) of prevention of corruption Act, 1988 wherein the petitioner herein has been arraigned as accused no.2 in spl.cc.no.1602/2025, pending on the file of the learned xxii addl. city civil and sessions judge at bengaluru (cch-24) (produced as annexure –‘h’) and etc.)

Cav Order:

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant the following reliefs:

                  “ a) Quash the FIR in Crime No.17/2020 registered by the respondents as against the petitioner arraigning him as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short, ‘PC Act’) pending before the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-24( and

                  aa) Quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.06.2025 filed by respondent No.1/Police in Crime No.17/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of PC Act, wherein the petitioner herein has been arraigned as accused No.2 in Spl. CC No.1602/2025 pending on the file of learned XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-24) (Produced as Annexure-H).

                  b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/Lokayukta is that they have registered the FIR on 21.05.2020 in Crime No.17/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.2. This petition was filed to quash the FIR, which is marked as Annexure-A. The certified copy of the complaint in Crime No.17/2020 is produced as Annexure-B, so also the certified copy of the order sheet in Crime No.17/2020 is produced as Annexure-C.

3. The petitioner was working as Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru City in the Economic Offences Wing. On 30.03.2020, the first information was filed before Banaswadi PS as against one Surush and others alleging the commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC in regard to manufacture of N-95 Mask in their lab with fake seal and certifications to provide standardization for the said mask. Pursuant to the said first information, a case in Crime No.164/2020 was registered by Banaswadi PS and the same was transferred to CCB by the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City. It is the case of the prosecution that one Sri. Guruprasad-Police Inspector was appointed as Investigating Officer of Crime No.164/2020 and investigation was taken up. When such being the case, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime-I, Head of the Central Crime Branch, addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner and one Sri.Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB have obtained illegal gratification to close the case in Crime No.164/2020. Based on the same, respondent No.2 herein recorded a statement on 12.05.2020 and started enquiry into the matter. Based on the said alleged statement made by Sri. Shaji George on 12.05.2020, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner and Sri. Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB. Pursuant to the same, the Cottonpet PS based on the said alleged statement made before the respondent No.2 and on the basis of communication made by the respondent No.2, have registered an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.63/2020 arraigning him as an accused for the offences punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC. A copy of FIR and complaint in Crime No.63/2020 are produced as Annexures-D and E. However, based on the communication made by respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB submitted a request to the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City requesting the Court to permit him to carryout investigation in respect of the aforementioned offences. Respondent No.1/Police, in respect of the same incident and factual matrix, has registered the case in Crime No.17/2020 dated 21.05.2020 invoking the provisions for the offences punishable under the PC Act. It is also the case of the prosecution that Shaji George, who is alleged to have stated that to assist the accused Surush in Crime No.164/2020, he approached one Sri. Amjad. The said Shaji George contacted the petitioner herein who promised that he would coordinate with accused No.1/ACP-Prabhu Shankar and requested for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs to drop him from the said case. That on 30.03.2020 and 31.03.2020, the said Amjad deposited Rs.5,00,000/- each and on 7.4.2020, the said Surush deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of Shaji George. It is alleged that between 31.03.2020 and 9.4.2020, the said amount was handed over to the petitioner/accused No.2 on various dates.

4. It is contended that with regard to the same allegations, Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner herein during the course of his employment and pursuant to the same, charge was framed and the articles of charge dated 10.07.2020 is produced as Annexure-F. In Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges leveled against him and the said Shaji George has stated that he is unaware of Kannada Language and not aware of the contents of Kannada Language. The statement of Surush stating that the transaction with Amjad pertains to sale of car and the fact that the prosecution witnesses 2 to 6 do not state anything about the petitioner being involved in acceptance of illegal gratification.

5. The Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated 16.05.2024 has exonerated the petitioner herein and confirmed the findings of the Departmental Enquiry as per Annexure-G. It is also contended that accused No.1 had approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.2470/2020, quashed the FIR as against accused No.1. A copy of the order dated 8.9.2021 passed in Crl.P.No.2470/2020 is produced as Annexure-H. The petitioner being aggrieved by continuation of investigation in Crime No.17/2020 was constrained to seek alternative and efficacious remedy by way of the present petition seeking to quash the impugned FIR and investigation. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner got amended the petition by inserting paragraph-13A stating that the police have filed final report as against the petitioner herein on 21.06.2025 alleging the commission of offences under Section 7A of the PC Act and this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner got amended the petition praying this Court to quash the proceedings including the FIR and charge sheet.

6. Learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P appearing for the petitioner, in his arguments, would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not committed any offence and in the absence of any material to connect the petitioner, the question of continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law. The counsel with vehemence would contend that the FIR can be registered based on either complaint as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as pursuant to a cognizable offence in accordance with Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the basis for registration of FIR in Crime No.17/2020 is neither a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. nor as per the requirements of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and no first information or complaint is given to the respondent No.1/Police in connection with the commission of a cognizable offence, however, the Dy.SP, ACB has made a request for commencing the investigation as against the petitioner and others to the Court. In the present case, Dy.SP, ACB is a person making the request to the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission to investigate the matter and the very same person has registered the FIR as against the petitioner acting as Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. There is no any material for having committed the cognizable offence. The very registration of Crime No.17/2020 as against this petitioner is without any complaint with an intention of malafides. The allegation made in Crime No.63/2020 and the allegation made in the Crime No.17/2020 is one and the same, which is impermissible in law. It is also contended that in order to invoke the provisions of Section 7 of the PC Act, the existence of demand and acceptance is sine-qua-non and the same is missing in the case on hand. However, strangely on the very same facts and allegations, subsequent FIR in Crime No.17/2020 has been registered by the respondent No.1/Police, which is opposed to law and the ingredients of offences under the PC Act is missing and therefore, continuation of two proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but harassment, and second FIR is impermissible.

7. It is contended that the first information or the alleged statement of Shaji Goeorge was recorded on 12.05.2020, which is after a lapse of more than 1 ½ months and the same itself would indicate that the alleged statement of Shaji George is an afterthought and leveled against the petitioner with a sole intention to put him at inconvenience. It is contended that the said delay in lodging the first information on 21.05.2020 i.e., ten days after recording the said statement of Shaji George would itself create a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and indicates that registration of 2nd FIR is nothing but an afterthought.

8. Having filed charge sheet, additional ground is invoked in paragraph-24(a) to (d) of this petition that a perusal of the entire charge sheet material, it is forthcoming that all the statements and documents pursuant to the said investigation have been obtained in the year 2020 and prior to September 2021. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.2470/2020 already quashed the proceedings in respect of accused No.1 having perused all the materials. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against this petitioner is erroneous and the same requires to be quashed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this petitioner is not the Investigating Officer in Crime No.164/2020 nor the part of investigation team, even not part of the raiding group of officers and so also not cited as witness in that case. When such being the case, recording the statement of Shaji George and Amjad is nothing but false implication of this petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, in view of this Court earlier had quashed the case against the accused No.1 and apart from that, in Departmental Enquiry, the present petitioner was exonerated. The respondent/Police are relying on the alleged seizure of cheques, screen shots of chattings, CCTV footages etc., which pertains to Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS. This would run contrary to the case of the 1st respondent/police that the aforesaid case is independent and is not a second FIR arising out of Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments would vehemently contend that the present case is liable to be dropped in view of observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari Vs. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another ((2020) 9 SCC 636) . The Departmental Enquiry is also based on the statement of Shaji George Thomas, who has been examined as PW1 and PW7- Surush and all these materials were got marked and only upon detail examination of the case, the petitioner was exonerated and hence, the charge sheet leveled against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the observation made at paragraph-43 of the order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.2470/2020, wherein this Court was pleased to note that the subsequent case registered by ACB/respondent was to overcome the interim order granted by this Court pertaining to Crime Nos.63 and 64 of 2020 of Cottonpet PS and the same is not permissible. The jurisdictional police have filed ‘B’ final report in respect of Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS indicating no involvement of the petitioner. The charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police relies upon the seizures/recoveries of cheques/CCTV footages etc. made in Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS and in view of filing of the charge sheet, the same could not be continued.

12. Per contra, learned special counsel for respondent/Lokayukta would submit that the Lokayukta Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court to Volume-2, page- 252 and paragraph-3 of the charge sheet and contend that one Mukesh has made statement on 22.05.2020, wherein he had categorically stated that he was having an acquaintance with this petitioner and he called the present petitioner to a particular phone number and when he requested to help him in the case registered against Surush, the petitioner informed him that as it is a serious case, the ACP/accused No.1 is demanding more amount of Rs.25 lakhs and the same was informed to Amjad and he requested him to reduce the amount and again he called him to the Inspector and the present petitioner informed him that he had discussed with accused No.1 and the same is settled for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. In terms of the same, he informed the same to Amjad, who in turn, informed him that he is going to transfer the amount to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and told him to withdraw the same and give the same to the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Manager of Amjad by name Shine Mukund transferred to his Account No.409000487486, Ratnakar Bank Limited (RBL), Koramangal Branch, an amount of Rs.2 lakh on 30.03.2020, Rs.1 lakh each three times to the tune of Rs.5 lakh; and on 31.03.2020, Rs.2 lakh twices and Rs.1 lakh, in total Rs.5 lakhs and also on 7.4.2020, Surush transferred the amount to his account to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, in all Rs.15 lakhs and the said amount was transferred from the account of Surush and Amjad in order to hand over the same to the present petitioner. Accordingly, he handed over the same to the present petitioner and on receipt of the said amount of Rs.15 lakhs, the present petitioner confirmed the same through WhatsApp. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the Court has to take note of the foundational facts of the case and apart from that, the statement of one Somashekar was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said Somashekhar has categorically made statement before the Court on 3.3.2021 that the present petitioner instructed him to get the amount drawn from the bank and accordingly, the present petitioner gave him one cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- and instructed him to meet the Lady Bank Manager, thereafter, draw the money and handover the same to the present petitioner. Accordingly, he met the Bank Manager and drew the money and handed over the same to the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta would contend that this Court has to consider the statement of Mukesh as well as Somashekar, who made the statement before the learned Magistrate for having handed over the amount to the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is a demand and acceptance, which requires to be proved in the trial, so also digital evidence is available, which is collected and the same is also to be proved; and the accused can get the chance of rebutting the same.

13. Learned counsel would also contend that the mobile phone of the present petitioner was seized by drawing mahazar, which clearly discloses the conversation between Shaji George and the present petitioner, which reflects in the seizure mahazar with regard to demand and making of payment in RBL Bank Account No. 409000487486, so also the conversation between Shaji George and Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan, Bank Manager with regard to the transactions dated 31.03.2020, 1.4.2020, 2.4.2020, 7.4.2020, 9.4.2020, 12.04.2020 and 5.5.2020 for having made payment. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the statement of Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan, Bank Manager and also the seizure of pendrive for having drawn the money by the said Somashekhar from RBL Bank and also cheque given by the Proprietor, M/s. S3 Business Solutions Inc and the said cheque was encashed by the said Somashekar and the said amount was handed over to the present petitioner.

14. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court in detail discussed while passing the earlier order in Crl.P.2470/2020 and the material, which they are relying upon, is inadmissible and there is no any recovery at the instance of this petitioner. Apart from that, the alleged self- cheque does not bear any signature of this petitioner and hence, this Court has to quash the proceedings.

15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta and also respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are formal parties, since other crime was registered in respect of the very same incident, but in the case on hand, quashing is sought for registration of the case by the Lokayukta Police. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as oral submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for consideration of this case:

                  a) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to quash the charge sheet proceedings against him in coming to a conclusion that there are no grounds to continue the proceedings against the petitioner as contended in the petition?

                  b) What order?

16. Having perused the material available on record, this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and accused No.1 is the then ACP and this Court, no doubt, had quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 vide order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.2470/2020. It is important to note that the allegation of prevention of corruption case is registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 only on the ground that a demand was made to close the case in Crime No.164/2020, which was registered against one Surush. It is also to be noted that the material against this petitioner is based on the statement of one Mukesh and the said statement was made on 22.05.2020. This Court has taken note of the fact that the said Mukesh was in touch with this petitioner and in the name of ACP, this petitioner demanded the money of Rs.25 lakhs that ACP is demanding Rs.25 lakhs. But this statement is very clear that this petitioner demanded the money in the name of ACP, but also says that the request was made to reduce the amount and the same was reduced to Rs.15 lakhs and hence, the same was informed to the said Amjad and the amount will be transferred to his account and withdrew that money and handed over the same to the present petitioner. The details are given in the statement and different amounts are transferred, in total Rs.15 lakhs (Rs.5 lakh each). From the account of Surush, he had transferred on 7.4.2020 and also the account number was given i.e., 40900487486, RBL Bank, Koramangal Branch.

17. It is also important to note that one Somashekhar was examined before the learned Magistrate on 3.3.2021, who is Head Constable and he categorically states that the present petitioner called him over mobile phone bearing No.9900232323 on 2.4.2020 and asked him to come to a particular place, where the petitioner handing over the cheque to him asked him to go and meet the Lady Bank Manager for withdrawing the money, and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed over the same to the present petitioner. So also, on 7.4.2020, in between 10 to 11 a.m., again the petitioner called the said Somashekar over the phone to collect the cheque and withdraw the money, accordingly, he collected the cheque and withdrew the money and handed over the same to the petitioner. For having withdrawn the money, he identifies himself in the CCTV footages in respect of both dates i.e. on 2.4.2020 and 7.4.2020 and says that only on the instruction of the present petitioner, he went and withdrew the money and handed over the same to the petitioner. It is also important to note that the statement of Bank Manager Sangeetha was recorded on 30.05.2020 and she also reiterates that Shaji George called her on 2.4.2020 and 7.4.2020 that he is sending self cheque with one person and she brought the same to the notice of the Branch Manager Ajay and without ID card, the amount was drawn and confirmed that the said amount was given to the present petitioner. She further says that as there were no one in the bank, Bank Manager Ajay himself took the amount of Rs.2 lakhs and handed over to Shaji George.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta brought to the notice of this Court the seizure of Pendrive in respect of those two dates for drawing of money by Somashekhar as well as self-cheque given by Shaji George. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no any counter signature of the present petitioner on the cheque, however, the same are triable issues, since there are statements made before the Investigating Officer by the above persons for having this petitioner dealt with the matter and only for demanding the money, referred the name of accused No.1. No doubt, this Court quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 on the ground that there was no any material and there were number of cases registered against accused No.1 in respect of the very same incident. In the present case, no doubt there were two FIRs, one is Crime No.63/2020 and the police having found that no material to continue the said proceedings in respect of the offences punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC, filed ‘B’ report. Now only one case is against the petitioner i.e., demand and acceptance of money by invoking the offences under the provisions of the PC Act. This Court earlier made an observation that there were two cases and in respect of the same incident, there cannot be two FIRs and quashed the proceedings against accused No.1. In the case on hand, specific allegations are made against the petitioner that referring the name of ACP, he had demanded the money of Rs.25 lakhs and the same was later reduced to Rs.15 lakhs. It is also to be noted that from the account of Surush, who is the accused in Crime No.164/2020, the amount was transferred in total Rs.15 lakhs to the different accounts on different dates and the said amount was withdrawn by the said Somashekar and his statement is very clear that this petitioner only handing over the self-cheque instructed him to draw the money and hand over the amount and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed over the same to the present petitioner. All these factors are to be considered during the course of trial. This Court cannot sit and decide the case on merits while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Now the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and collected the material including the digital evidence with regard to drawing of money by Somashekhar and also when he made the statement that he withdrew the money and handed over the same to the present petitioner, the same is a triable issue before the trial Court and he has to be examined before the trial Court.

19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court earlier quashed the proceedings in respect of accused No.1 is concerned, no doubt, at the time of considering the same, there were several cases in respect of the particular incident and there was second FIR also. Now in the present case, there is no any 2nd FIR and already police filed ‘B’ report in respect of Crime No.63/2020. The present case is in respect of Crime No.17/2020 for the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe money. Here there is a statement of demand and acceptance of money by the petitioner. The material on record also discloses that there are materials against the petitioner including the statement of Bank Manager that the present petitioner called and gave money to a particular person to whom asked by the present petitioner to make the payment, so also the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized, which discloses the conversation between the present petitioner as well as Shaji George, so also the Bank Manager and Shaji George; so also the statement of Bank Manager is available before the Court. Apart from that, there is a statement of Mukesh, who dealt with the matter with regard to demand also. The Court has to consider the digital evidence i.e. seizure of pendrive with regard to drawing of money and handing over the same to the present petitioner, so also the cheques, whether the cheque bears the signature of the petitioner or not, also to be considered by trial.

20. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashu Surendranath Tiwari. In view of the said judgment, since departmental enquiry is conducted against the petitioner, wherein he was exonerated and the same is distinguished by this Court in the earlier occasion in the case of State of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs. T. Manjunath and others (2024 SCC OnLine 31785) and the same is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment4. The counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukta also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District, Bagalkot vs. Chandrashekar and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 13) , wherein at paragrpahs-15 and 16, it has held as under:

                  “15. Having thus stated the law regulating the final decision in a departmental enquiry, we cannot but notice that in the present case, there is a final order produced as passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that a retired District Judge was the Enquiry Officer, which according to us gives the enquiry no higher sanctity than that would be conferred on any enquiry report in any disciplinary proceeding carried out by a person not trained in law. The Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent person who would have no connection with the management to ensure against any allegation of bias. A retired judicial officer being appointed as an enquiry officer does not confer the enquiry report any higher value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to such reports. We cannot but observe that in this case the Enquiry Officer fell into an error by requiring proof at a higher level than that necessary under preponderance of probabilities and so did the Disciplinary Authority, in concurring with the same.

                  16. ……………………………..We cannot but notice that there would be no consequence in not responding to a summons in departmental proceedings, while a like failure in criminal proceedings would be more drastic. The criminal court has ample powers to ensure the presence of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which the Enquiry Officer does not possess. In this context, the fact that the prosecuting agency and the one carrying on the departmental enquiry being two entities assumes significance. Further, here the trap was laid by the ACB, and the prosecution was conducted at the behest of the Lokayukta, and we cannot presume or anticipate any laxity on the prosecuting agency of not bringing the Inspector to the box, before the criminal court. More pertinently we cannot, on such anticipated laxity put an end to the prosecution.”

                  (Emphasis supplied)

21. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra at paragraphs-15 and 16 and also in the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari (supra), no doubt, the Departmental Enquiry is conducted wherein the petitioner was exonerated, but even the very same witnesses have not supported the case in the Departmental Enquiry and this Court cannot presume that they are also going to not support the case on hand. Having considered the gravity of the offence and the accusation made against the petitioner and both are two different entities, assumes significance of departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution. This Court earlier had already made an observation that a case of trap and handing over the money, cannot be decided in a departmental enquiry, wherein there are preponderance of probabilities and in the case on hand, proving of the charges leveled beyond reasonable doubt. When all these materials are placed before this Court with regard to role of the petitioner including the phone conversations with regard to demand and acceptance and handing over the money, the same requires to be considered during the course of trial. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 13 referred supra comes to the aid of respondent/Lokayukta and the matter requires full-fledged trial in view of charges leveled against the petitioner and there are specific allegations against this petitioner that he indulged in all these acts by referring the name of ACP. No doubt, this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 and the Investigating Officer considering the material during investigation has now filed charge sheet and the said charge sheet material requires to be tested in trial including the digital evidence. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this is not a fit case to invoke the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., all these disputed facts cannot be decided. Hence, I answered the point as “negative”.

22. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

                  ORDER

                  The present criminal petition stands dismissed.