ORDER : A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J. The petitioners, facing trial in C.C. 1017/2014, on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, for alleged commission of offence punishable under S. 201 of IPC have filed this petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash entire proceedings of the said case. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Ramanjini, S/o late Sonnappa, on 08.06.2013, at about 09.00 p.m., had committed suicide by hanging in the land belonging to one Kempanna of Avalgurki Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk and District. Seeing the same, the petitioners removed the noose from the neck, shifted him to nearby Chikkaballapur Government Hospital for treatment and the doctors found that the said Ramanjini, as brought dead. Thereafter, the petitioners took the body to the native of the deceased, informed his relatives and in their presence, the body was buried, at about 11.00 a.m. on 09.06.2013. The tree that was used for hanging was cut and removed. Fifteen days later, i.e., on 21.06.2013, the police having received a complaint from an undisclosed person, alleging that the petitioners have destroyed the evidence and that action be taken against them, a case was registered and FIR was filed, which culminated in submission of final report. Cognizance having been taken C.C. No.1017/2014 was registered against the petitioners. 3. In support of the petition, Sri S.R. Sreeprasad, learned advocate, contended that the ingredients of S.201 IPC being absent in the charge-sheet filed and the documents annexed to it and the cognizance taken being mechanical and contrary to the decision of Apex Court in SUKHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2007) 7 SCC 502 , there being abuse of process of law. He submitted that S.201 IPC being ancillary to the main offence and in the absence of the main offence, S.201 IPC cannot be invoked. He submitted that no conviction is permissible for the offence under S.201 IPC, in the absence of conviction for the main offence and in the instant case, the charge-sheet having been filed only for the offence under S.201 IPC, the petitioners, who are innocent, have been made the victims. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been unnecessarily made to face trial, though they have not committed any offence nor have destroyed any evidence, as alleged by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been unnecessarily made to face trial, though they have not committed any offence nor have destroyed any evidence, as alleged by the prosecution. 4. Smt. Anitha R., learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the investigation having shown the commission of an offence punishable under S.201 IPC, the petitioners should face trial and that no interference with the case pending before the Trial Court is called for. 5. S.201 IPC reads thus: S.201.Causingdisappearanceofevidenceofoffence,orgivingfalseinformationtoscreenoffender.Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; If a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; If punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. The first part of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence, while the remaining three parts, describe three different tiers of punishments, depending upon the degree of the offence in each situation. The first part of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence, while the remaining three parts, describe three different tiers of punishments, depending upon the degree of the offence in each situation. The ingredients of an offence under S.201 IPC are: (i) that an offence has been committed; (ii) that accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence; (iii) that, with such knowledge or belief, he – (a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or 6 (b) gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false; (iv) that he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. The section punishes a person, who, knowing that any offence has been committed, destroys the evidence of that offence or gives false information, in order to screen the offender from legal punishment. The provision has been designed to penalise “attempts to frustrate the course of justice”. 6. In PALVINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1952 SC 354 , with regard to the ingredients to establish the charge under S.201 IPC, Apex Court has held as follows: “ In order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed; that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed; with requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.” 7. In HANUMAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 1994 supp (2) SCC 39, Apex Court has held as follows: “The mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death would not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 IPC, unless the prosecution was further able to establish that the accused persons knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed, causing the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear.” 8. In RAM SARAN MAHTO AND ANOTEHR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (1999) 9 SCC 486 , Apex Court has held as follows: “11. In RAM SARAN MAHTO AND ANOTEHR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (1999) 9 SCC 486 , Apex Court has held as follows: “11. The first paragraph of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. The two indispensable ingredients for all the three tiers in Section 201 are: (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it. (2) He should then have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence. The prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid two basic ingredients, for conviction of the accused under Section 201.” 9. In SUKHRAM (supra), on which reliance was placed by Sri S.R. Sreeprasad, Apex Court has held as follows: “18. …………To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.” 10. In ARBIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (1995) (SUPP. 4) SCC 416, Apex Court has held that, unless the accused had the mens rea in the sense that they knew that the death of the deceased was not a natural one and they knowingly became privy to the destruction of evidence, conviction under S.201 IPC cannot be based. 11. In ARBIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (1995) (SUPP. 4) SCC 416, Apex Court has held that, unless the accused had the mens rea in the sense that they knew that the death of the deceased was not a natural one and they knowingly became privy to the destruction of evidence, conviction under S.201 IPC cannot be based. 11. The prosecution has not alleged that the petitioners were in any way concerned with the act of suicide by Ramanjini. There is no material on record to furnish the basis even for a grave suspicion that by burying the dead body or by removing the tree, wherein, Ramanjini, was found hanging, the petitioners caused the disappearance of the evidence of an offence, to screen any offender. The acts attributed to the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination contain the evidence of the factual ingredients of an offence under S.201 IPC. 12. On applying the aforesaid legal principles to the instant case, it is clear that the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients that the petitioners having known or had reason to believe the commission of an offence and that, with such knowledge or belief they caused evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear. The prosecution case not satisfying the above ingredients and there being no evidence on record to attribute knowledge of commission of offence by other accused person/s if any, the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under S.201 IPC amounts to abuse of process. Hence, a case for exercise of power under S.482 of Cr.P.C. is made out, since the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected by the prosecution do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners. In the result, petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1017/2014 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkaballapur is quashed.