Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. I don't feel it just and necessary to issue any notice to the 1st respondent and the same is dispensed with. 3. On perusal of the records, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging the offences under Sections 504, 341, 447, 506, 323, 324, 354 r/w 149 along with 143, 147 and 148 of I.P.C. The Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. The Court after taking cognizance of the offences issued summons to the accused. The petitioners/accused persons appeared before the Court. The Order sheet discloses that on 20.01.2014 the Court has framed the charges. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the basis of such proceedings, the Court issued summons to the witnesses. Therefore, the case is at the stage of recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. The charge sheet allegations are that on 25.05.2012 at about 10.15 a.m. at a place called Nellidadi, Bajpe Village, Mangalore Taluk the petitioners by doing some earth work in the land which the 1st respondent claimed to be belonging to him and others. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent and others had been to the said place and at that stage some quarrel took place. It is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant and others with stones and also they threatened them with dire consequences of killing them and also outraged the modesty of one of the prosecution witnesses. On these allegations, the charge sheet has been laid. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners herein tried to persuade by bringing to my notice that the land in question in which the petitioners were doing some earth work belonging to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. By virtue of the acquisition proceedings in IADB/1552/6648/2006-07 the land acquisition proceedings were completed and the possession has been delivered in favour of SEZ, Mangalore. This proceedings has been challenged by the 1st respondent before this Court in W.P. No. 20962/2012 and this Court has dismissed the said petition vide orders dated 14th November 2013 and thereby acquisition proceedings reached its logical end. 6. This proceedings has been challenged by the 1st respondent before this Court in W.P. No. 20962/2012 and this Court has dismissed the said petition vide orders dated 14th November 2013 and thereby acquisition proceedings reached its logical end. 6. In order to implement the object of acquisition, the petitioners were doing their statutory work in the said land which was interfered by the respondents and others themselves. Therefore, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners as the respondents and others have not successful in their attempt in the writ petition. Though the above said documents are relevant for the consideration but at this stage by means of considering these two documents i.e. possessory certificate and as well as the orders in Writ Petition, the Court cannot conclusively say that no such incident as alleged in the charge sheet has been occurred and no offence has been committed by the petitioners. In my opinion, these two documents and the submissions made by the learned Counsel may be given itself to the accused to be established during the course of the Trial before this Court. 7. Under the above said circumstances, though some malafides has been alleged against the 1st respondent and others but this Court cannot give any conclusive judgment on that particular aspect which requires appreciation of facts. If this Court is relying upon these documents to quash the entire proceedings it amounts to writing of a judgment acquitting the accused persons without there being a trial. 8. Under the above said circumstances, I don't find any strong reasons to interfere with the proceedings pending before the trial Court particularly charges have already been framed and the case is set down for evidence of prosecution witnesses, petitioners shall work out their remedy before the Trial Court by producing the above said documents at the relevant point of time. 9. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2014 filed for stay does not survive for consideration.