ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the petitioners are arrayed as the accused in the same criminal case. 2. Tire facts and circumstances leading up to these petitions being filed are said to be as follows. A complaint is said to have been lodged by one Patrick Xavier on 1-4-2013, before the Yeshwanthpur Police Station about the alleged murder of one Father. Thomas K.J, who was said to be the Rector of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, situate within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. It was stated that the complainant, the deceased and one Father G. Joseph had supper at the Seminary and had remained together between 7.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. Thereafter, they are said to have retired to their respective rooms for the night. It was said that at about 2.30 a.m., the complainant had heard loud screams outside and there was also someone at his door trying to break open the same. The complainant did not choose to open the door or investigate, as he put down the commotion to miscreants having gained entry into the premises and he was surprised that they were seeking to extort money. It was only at 5 a.m., he ventured to come outside to find that the door to his office chambers had been damaged and he is also said to have noticed bloodstains outside his office and also in front of the staff room which was adjacent and on the tarred pathway. Once inside the room, he is said to have seen the dead body of Fr. Thomas lying in a seminude state, with bloodstains. He also found on entering the Rector's Office Chamber, that a cupboard and a safe locker had been broken open and ransacked. Hence the complaint of what was apparently a murder and robbery. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No. 157 of 2013 was said to have been registered for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the TPC', for brevity). It is said that accused nos. 1 to 5 were implicated after investigation and on the basis of oral statements of some of the witnesses. accused nos. 1 and 2 were said to have been arrested on 21-3-2014 and accused no. 3 on 20-3-2014. accused nos. It is said that accused nos. 1 to 5 were implicated after investigation and on the basis of oral statements of some of the witnesses. accused nos. 1 and 2 were said to have been arrested on 21-3-2014 and accused no. 3 on 20-3-2014. accused nos. 4 and 5 are said to be absconding. It is stated that there was an ongoing agitation by several Kannada Christian activists seeking primacy for Kannada Christians in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka and in particular, there was a demand to make the St. Peter's Seminary, a Kannada institution. And that the membership of non-Kannada linguistic groups in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka to be kept to a minimum. In that background, the deceased, being a non-Kannadiga and believed to be an adversary of the Kannada Christian activists, it was sought to be theorised that it was the said group which had masterminded and engineered the murder. It is claimed that this theory was strongly projected by the non-Kannada Christian members of the congregations, mainly Malayalam, Tamil and Konkani speaking Christians. It was alleged that it included such important persons, as K.J. George, an erstwhile minister of the present Government in Karnataka, the Archbishop of Bangalore-Bernard Moras and a retired Deputy Commissioner of Police-V.S. D'Souza, among others. A charge-sheet was said to have been filed against accused nos. 1 to 5 as on 17-6-2014, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 149 read with Section 120-B of IPC. Cognizance was said to have been taken on the said charge-sheet and a case was registered in SC No. 1439 of 2014, on committal to the Court of Sessions. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that accused nos. 1 to 5 had walked into the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary at about 11 p.m. on 31-3-2013 and the Security guard at the gate was sent away to have a drink by the accused and that the guard had remained absent till about 2 a.m. on 1-4-2013, when the murder is said to have taken place. As it was the firm belief of the present petitioner and others, who supported the Kannada Christian group, that the accused had been unfairly and without any basis implicated, are said to have embarked on the task of unveiling the truth and to save the accused nos. As it was the firm belief of the present petitioner and others, who supported the Kannada Christian group, that the accused had been unfairly and without any basis implicated, are said to have embarked on the task of unveiling the truth and to save the accused nos. 1 to 5 from false prosecution, by taking recourse to all legal means available, including campaigns, meetings and writings. It is claimed that they drew support from various quarters and their agitation for fair play and justice is said to have brought pressure on the Government and the Church itself. The Archbishop himself is said to have threatened Fr. Selvaraj that he would be defrocked if he continued with the said agitations. It is alleged that at the instance of respondents no. 13 and 14 in W.P. No. 18062 of 2016, the police officers, arrayed as respondents no. 9 to 12, are said to have brought unrelenting pressure on the petitioners herein and others by visiting them and also calling upon them to attend enquiry sessions and seeking to recover documents and alleged incriminating material from the petitioners. This, it is claimed, only further strengthened their resolve to fight for the freedom of the accused and they are said to have intensified their agitation. This circumstance, it is said, led to the police filing an additional charge-sheet dated 26-10-2015, on 24-11-2015, naming these petitioners as accused nos. 6 to 12, for the same offences as alleged against accused nos. 1 to 5. It is that which is under challenge in these petitions. accused no. 8 is said to have died recently. 3. The learned Senior Advocate Sri B.V. Acharya, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 18062 of 2016, would contend that there is a gross misuse of law in the prosecution seeking to file an additional charge-sheet after nearly three years of the incident seeking to implicate the petitioner and others. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.', for brevity), does not enable the Investigating Agency to implicate persons at its whim and fancy at indefinite points of time. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.', for brevity), does not enable the Investigating Agency to implicate persons at its whim and fancy at indefinite points of time. It is pointed out that the additional charge-sheet is filed on the basis of alleged material that was available even prior to filing of the original charge-sheet and therefore, it is evident that the additional charge-sheet is only to stifle the petitioner and others from speaking out against the injustice being caused to accused nos. 1 to 5. It is contended that the additional charge-sheet is clearly engineered to prevent the petitioners from carrying on their legitimate campaign against the powers that be in the Church, by targeting the Kannada Christian fraternity, of whom the petitioners are identified as their unnamed leaders, is evident from the undue attention that has been bestowed on the petitioners by the Investigating Agency apparently at the behest of the non-Kannada groups, including the concerned respondents. It is sought to be highlighted that the additional charge-sheet does not disclose any basis warranting the same as it is based on material that was available at the time of filing the original charge-sheet. The conduct of the complainant is particularly questioned. Sri Acharya would point out that after the complainant, who was admittedly in the next room where the deceased was said to have been murdered and when he was woken up by the commotion of loud screams and his room door being allegedly sought to be broken open, the fact that he had not chosen to alert the police or seek help, when he had access to five telephones in his room, is inexplicable. He was one of the last persons to see the deceased alive and also the first to discover his dead body. He also stood to gain by the death of the victim, as he was likely to be the next rector of the Seminary, but he has been presumed to be innocent in spite of his odd response to the incident, which is highly suspicious and would possibly make him, along with his accomplices, the perpetrator of the crime. It is hence emphasised that there is no material to implicate the petitioners either in the main charge-sheet or the additional charge-sheet, indicating their direct or indirect participation in the perpetration of the alleged crime. 4. It is hence emphasised that there is no material to implicate the petitioners either in the main charge-sheet or the additional charge-sheet, indicating their direct or indirect participation in the perpetration of the alleged crime. 4. Sri Hasmath Pasha, Counsel appearing for accused no. 12 would contend that the only allegation found against the said accused is to the effect that he had participated at a procession and rally along with others protesting against oppression by outsider Christian elements who were dominating over and crushing the local Kannada Christian populace of the Church. Therefore, it is highly imaginative to have implicated the said accused as being involved in the commission of any crime, in the absence of any incriminating material. 5. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, Counsel appearing for accused no. 7 would contend that a case of circumstantial evidence is sought to be made out against the petitioner, as if on an afterthought. The alleged motive attributed to the petitioner does not even raise a flicker of suspicion. The petitioner was definitely a part of a large group of individuals espousing a cause for over a decade and a half. The demands were to have a separate Seminary for the Kannada speaking Christians within the premises of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary among other demands. The ways and means adopted were above board and legally acceptable. The agitation had drawn widespread support from other organisations as well. The involvement of the petitioner in the said movement could not be linked to the murder. The post of Rector held by the deceased did not take within its fold the reigns of power of the Seminary. Nor did he hold any power over the properties of the Seminary. The only power vested in the office was of caring for the discipline of trainees who came to the Seminary, their education and the day-to-day care and maintenance of the Seminary. The death of the Rector in no way has advanced the objective of the continued agitation of the Kannada speaking Christians of the Church. They are only projected in a poorer light and the accusation against the petitioner is a case in point. It is pointed out that there is not much variance in the contents of the main charge-sheet and the additional charge-sheet, implicating the petitioner and others. They are only projected in a poorer light and the accusation against the petitioner is a case in point. It is pointed out that there is not much variance in the contents of the main charge-sheet and the additional charge-sheet, implicating the petitioner and others. In the absence of any incriminating material and suspicion alone being the criteria to allege a motive cannot form the substance of a serious accusation of murder, and hence seeks quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. The State has opposed the petitions and has contended that the Sessions Court has framed charges and recorded the pleas of accused nos. 1 to 3, as on 6-4-2016. The date for the trial was set on 23-8-2016. That after the first charge-sheet was filed on 17-6-2014, investigation was continued and a further report was submitted against accused nos. 6 to 12, as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C., as on 24-11-2015. And that the same is pending in Case No. CC 27574/2015. The proceedings had been stayed by this Court on 6-4-2016. The statement of objections goes on to narrate the several incidents where there were instances of the petitioners having participated in agitations and other incidents of having created disturbances, to highlight certain demands and grievances and in the course of which, utterances made of seeking vengeance against the deceased victim, who had been characterised as an opponent to their cause, all of which was supported by statements of witnesses to such incidents. It is thus contended that there was abundant material to indicate that the petitioners were instrumental in having committed the murder of the deceased. It is stated that from the call details of the cell phones of the said accused nos. 6 to 12, it was evident that they were in constant touch with each other. This according to the prosecution is evidence of their active machination to commit the murder of the deceased. It is claimed that the petitioners were found to be associated with the following associations, namely, the Karnataka Kannada Christian Dharma Gurugala Balaga (KKCDGB), the Akhila Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (AKCCKS) and the Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (KCCKS), which was evident from documents said to have been seized during the course of investigation. That accused no. It is claimed that the petitioners were found to be associated with the following associations, namely, the Karnataka Kannada Christian Dharma Gurugala Balaga (KKCDGB), the Akhila Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (AKCCKS) and the Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (KCCKS), which was evident from documents said to have been seized during the course of investigation. That accused no. 11 was the editor of a Kannada magazine known as 'Maathu Kathe', which is paper that is a staunch supporter of the petitioners. And that accused no. 12 was an office bearer of the Santha Josephra Snehabhivrudhi Sangha. It is alleged that accused nos. 7 to 9 had taken part in meetings at which it was resolved that they would strive to take over the St. Peter's Seminary. And in this regard had drawn the support of accused nos. 10 and 12, who were said to be the office bearers of the above said organisations. The following incidents are highlighted to demonstrate that the said accused nos. 6 to 12 had a definite design in achieving their goal and since the deceased was an impediment, he had been brutally murdered at their instance and active conspiracy. (a) On 17-2-2000, at about 10.30 a.m., the members of KKCDGB led by accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas and the members of AKKCCS led by accused no. 10-Raphaelraj, accused no. 11-Rita Reeni and others, forcibly entered the premises of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary and pounded violently on the doors of the auditorium where a meeting of Board of Bishops was in progress. The reason was to disrupt the meeting and to press for their demands to convert the premises of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary into a Seminary exclusively for Kannada speaking Christians. The pounding on the door of the auditorium was so violent and forceful that it appeared to the delegates that the door might break. Fearing this, the doors of the auditorium were opened. Immediately, the intruders are said to have barged into the meeting hall and started shouting slogans and stalled the meeting for about two hours. accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas was extremely violent and he is said to have rushed to assault the then Archbishop, Most Rev. Ignatius Pinto. But, the then Rector and now the Bishop of Mysore Most. Rev. Dr. Thomas Vazhapilly is said to have prevented accused no. accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas was extremely violent and he is said to have rushed to assault the then Archbishop, Most Rev. Ignatius Pinto. But, the then Rector and now the Bishop of Mysore Most. Rev. Dr. Thomas Vazhapilly is said to have prevented accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas from doing that act and rescued the Archbishop. Their behaviour that day has been described as resembling those of "hired Goondas" in a civil plaint filed by the deceased Father K.J. Thomas in 2000. (b) On 29-6-2000, which was the Seminary day and was also the Golden Jubilee Year of the priesthood of Father Legrand, an iconic French Priest, who is said to have taught at the Seminary. The staff members and students had assembled in the Chapel of the Seminary to attend the Holy Mass scheduled to be held at 11.15 a.m. At about 10.30 a.m., accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj alias Chasara (now dead) and other members of the KKCCS arrived there and demanded that they, as per the Seminary practices, be allowed to read out a memorandum during the Holy Mass which was not permitted. Despite the pleadings by the students and other priests, accused no. 2-Father William Patrick and his associates went ahead with the reading of the memorandum in the chapel. Their violent conduct was completely unbecoming of Roman Catholic Priest. It not only hurt the sentiments of the teaching staff and the students, but also defied the sanctity of the chapel in the words of the murdered Rector, Father K.J. Thomas. (c) Following these incidents of violence and as per the instructions of the then Archbishop, Most Rev. Ignatius Pinto, the deceased Father K.J. Thomas, in his capacity as the then Procurator of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, is said to have filed a civil suit in OS No. 5183 of 2000 requesting the City Civil Court to grant injunction against accused no. 2-Father William Patrick and his associate priests namely, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, late Father Stany Baptist, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj (now dead), Father I. Joseph, Father Fathiraj, Father Santiago, Father Arulappa and all members of the "Karnataka Kannada Catholic Priests Conference" and represented by its Vice-President, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, restraining them in any manner from interfering in the activities, affairs and functioning of the Seminary. 7-Father A. Thomas, late Father Stany Baptist, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj (now dead), Father I. Joseph, Father Fathiraj, Father Santiago, Father Arulappa and all members of the "Karnataka Kannada Catholic Priests Conference" and represented by its Vice-President, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, restraining them in any manner from interfering in the activities, affairs and functioning of the Seminary. This Court is said to have ordered status quo. The order of status quo remained in force from 3-8-2000 to 14-10-2004. Through this order, the aforesaid persons including accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj, Father I. Joseph, Father Fathiraj, Father Santiago, Father Arulappa were kept away from the premises of the Seminary. The said suit filed by the deceased Father K.J. Thomas against accused no. 2-Father William Patrick and others created great anger and resentment against the deceased. (d) Subsequently, at periodical intervals, accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj alias Chasara (now dead), Father Barthalomew and their associates visited the office of the deceased Rector Father K.J. Thomas, and threatened him saying that they would wreak vengeance on him for having involved them in litigation. (e) During October 2010, a group led by accused no. 1-Raphaelraj, General Secretary of AKKCCS and another associates visited the Seminary and met the deceased Father K.J. Thomas and demanded to permit them to hoist a "Kannada flag", in front of the Seminary on 1st November, 2010. They also submitted a petition in this regard. Similarly, the group led by accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 7-Father A. Thomas, accused no. 8-Father C. Selvaraj alias Chasara, Father Barthalome, Father Sagayaraj and other members of the KKCDGB visited deceased Father K.J. Thomas in the Seminary and demanded to permit them to hoist Kannada flag in front of the Seminary. The deceased Father K.J. Thomas told them that he would discuss the matter with the Staff Council of the Seminary and also with the Archbishop and inform them about the decision. accused no. 10-Raphaelraj and RTO Chandru and two others are said to have come and met the deceased Father K.J. Thomas expressing their firm decision to hoist the Kannada flag. (f) On 31-10-2010, a big group led by accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. accused no. 10-Raphaelraj and RTO Chandru and two others are said to have come and met the deceased Father K.J. Thomas expressing their firm decision to hoist the Kannada flag. (f) On 31-10-2010, a big group led by accused no. 2-Father William Patrick, accused no. 10-Raphaelraj, RTC Chandru and other members of the AKKCCS entered into the premises of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, and forcibly erected a flag hole. accused no. 2-Father William Patrick hoisted a Kannada flag without the permission of the then Rector, the deceased Father K.J. Thomas. Some of the staff members of the Seminary requested the deceased Father K.J. Thomas to intervene and to stop the depredations of the intruders. Father K.J. Thomas openly expressed his helplessness and further replied to them that he was mortally afraid of accused no. 2-Father William Patrick and his associates. In his own words "If I go and stop them my blood will be shed". These very words were heard by several members of the Seminary, who met him on that day. Subsequently, the Seminary authorities started hoisting the Kannada flag on their own on 1st November every year. Reliance is placed on the statements of C.Ws. 100 and 117, to the effect that they were told by the deceased on several occasions that the members of the above mentioned organisations had expressed that he was a hurdle in their path to achieving their goals and that he feared for his life. And he had also said to have mentioned that since he had filed a civil suit against several of the accused, on the instructions of the Archbishop, on behalf of the Seminary restraining them from interfering with its affairs, it had further incensed the said accused persons and their hatred towards him was palpable. It is further contended that the accused were hopeful of their sympathiser, one Fr. Lourdu Prasad, a member of the teaching faculty at the Seminary and also a member of the KKCDGB, mentioned above would be nominated as the Rector, in the place of the deceased. But since the deceased had been again renominated for a further period from 2012-2015, the accused could not stomach the same and were waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased from the scene. It is further alleged that the statements of C.Ws. 120, 121 and 122, disclosed that accused no. But since the deceased had been again renominated for a further period from 2012-2015, the accused could not stomach the same and were waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased from the scene. It is further alleged that the statements of C.Ws. 120, 121 and 122, disclosed that accused no. 12 had held meetings with the other accused and had made representations to the higher echelons of the Church, which clearly demonstrated their close association and common intention and particularly the mens rea. It is pointed out that when there was an important meeting of the Board of Bishops, an August body of the Church, the accused had distributed hand bills proposing to disturb the conclave and in this regard, the deceased had approached the police to provide protection against the accused from disturbing the meeting, which had again angered the accused against the deceased. It is claimed that just two days prior to the commission of murder, accused nos. 7 to 12 had participated at a massive rally and had made speeches denigrating the non-Kannada members of the Church and are said to have quoted from the Holy Bible, this ominous sentence: 'It is better that, one man dies for the people than that the whole nation perishes'. This was an utterance by a Jewish high priest with reference to Jesus Christ, who was perceived then as a threat to their domain and was said to be a justification for the Jews killing Christ. It is further claimed that the statements of C.Ws. 126, 127 to 130 would reveal that accused no. 6, a Parish priest was a close friend of accused nos. 1 and 2 and that they were constantly visiting and staying with him and as accused no. 6 was an active member of the KKCDGB, he had accommodated accused nos. 7, 8, 2 and others to hold meetings at his residence to chart out their plan to carry out their long term plans apart from eliminating the deceased. It is contended that the large number of criminal cases instituted against many of the accused persons over the years, is a further testimony to their certain involvement in the commission of the murder of the deceased victim. 7. It is contended that the large number of criminal cases instituted against many of the accused persons over the years, is a further testimony to their certain involvement in the commission of the murder of the deceased victim. 7. On a consideration of the above contentions and from an examination of the material on record, particularly, the charge-sheets, namely, the charge-sheet filed as on 17-6-2014, which is after a period of more than one year and two and a half months from the date of the alleged incident, and the charge-sheet dated 26-10-2015, actually filed on 24-11-2015, which is after more than two and a half years after the incident, implicating the present petitioners, a summarised comparison of the two charge-sheets would indicate that there is little difference between the two. This comparative chart would disclose this glaring circumstance: First charge-sheet Second charge-sheet During February 2000 the office bearers i.e. the members of 'Karnataka Kannada Christa Dharma Gurugala Balaga' held meetings; A2-Fr. William Patric and Al-Fr. Elias Daniel were part of it and decided to work towards taking over the properties and administration of Seminary. During February 2000 the office-bearers i.e. the members of 'Karnataka Kannada Christa Dharma Gurugala Balaga' held meetings; A7-Fr. A. Thomas, A8-Fr C Selvaraj; A9-Fr. I. Anthappa, A2-Fr. William Patrick and Al-Fr. Elias Daniel were part of it and decided to work towards taking over the properties and administration of Seminary. Then the Balaga established contacts with likeminded Akhila Karnataka Kannada Catholic Christara Sanga - led by Raphaelraj and the Santa Josephara Snehabhivrudhi Sangha. Then the Balaga established contacts with likeminded Akhila Karnataka Kannada Catholic Christara Sanga - led by A12-Raphaelraj and the Santa Josephara Snehabhivrudhi Sangaha - led by A12-Anthony Prasad. Took the Help of All-Reeta Rini. Significant acts to take over administration/brow beat members of Churches not affiliated to them Significant acts to take over administration/brow beat members of Churches not affiliated to them 1. On 17-2-2000 at 10.30 a.m. members of Balaga that included A2-William Patrick and members AKKCCS entered forcibly the seminary premises where meeting of Board of Bishops was going on and raised slogans that Seminary is exclusively for Kannada speaking Christians. 1. On 17-2-2000 at 10.30 a.m. members of Balaga that included A2-William Patrick, A7-Fr. On 17-2-2000 at 10.30 a.m. members of Balaga that included A2-William Patrick and members AKKCCS entered forcibly the seminary premises where meeting of Board of Bishops was going on and raised slogans that Seminary is exclusively for Kannada speaking Christians. 1. On 17-2-2000 at 10.30 a.m. members of Balaga that included A2-William Patrick, A7-Fr. A. Thomas and members AKKCCS, AlO-Rapheal Raj, All-Reeta Rini entered forcibly the seminary premises where meeting of Board of Bishops was going on and raised slogans that Seminary is exclusively for Kannada speaking Christians. 2. On 29-6-2000 during Holy Mass in the Seminary at 11.15 a.m.; A2-Fr. William, and members of AKKCCS read out memorandum during holy mass. 2. On 29-6-2000 during Holy Mass in the Seminary at 11.15 a.m.; A2-Fr. William A7-A. Thomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj and members of AKKCCS read out memorandum during holy mass. 3. Following this - Fr. K.J. Thomas filed civil suit in O.S. No. 5183 of 2000 before City Civil Court seeking to grant injunction against A2-William, A7-Fr. A. Thomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj, Fr. I. Joseph, Fr. Fathiraj, Fr. Santiago, Fr. Arulappa and restraining them from interfering in the activities, affairs and functioning of the Seminary; order to maintain status quo remained from - 2000 to 14-10-2004 - there was anger among the Balaga members 3. Following this - Fr. K.J. Thomas filed civil suit in O.S. No. 5183 of 2000 before City Civil Court seeking to grant injunction against A2-William, A7-Fr. A. Tomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj, Fr. I. Joseph, Fathiraj, Fr. Santiago, Fr. Arulappa rid restraining them from interfering in he activities, affairs and functioning of he Seminary; order to maintain status remained from - 2000 to 14-10-2004 there was anger among the Balaga members. 4. Periodically A2-Fr. William, and 4 others visited the office of K.J. Thomas and stated that they would wreak vengeance. 4. Periodically A2-Fr. William, A2-Fr. A. Thomas, A8-Fr. Selvaraj - visited the office of K.J. Thomas and stated that they would wreak vengeance. 5. During October 2010 - members of AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag on November 1, 2010; also, A2-Fr. William urged to hoist Flag. During October 2010 A10 of AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag on November 1, 2010; also, A2-Fr. William; A7-Fr. Thomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj urged to hoist Flag. On 31-10-2010 big group led by Fr. 5. During October 2010 - members of AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag on November 1, 2010; also, A2-Fr. William urged to hoist Flag. During October 2010 A10 of AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag on November 1, 2010; also, A2-Fr. William; A7-Fr. Thomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj urged to hoist Flag. On 31-10-2010 big group led by Fr. William, Raphael hoisted the Kannada Flag; thereafter the Authorities started to hoist from then on. On 31-10-2010 big group led by Fr. William-A lO, Raphael-A2 hoisted the Kannada Flag; thereafter the Authorities started to hoist from then on. 6. Apprehensions were expressed by Fr. Thomas to Fr. John and Fr. Choury Moses. 6. Apprehensions were expressed by Fr. Thomas to Fr. John and Fr. Choury Moses. 7. During February 2012 when Annual meeting of Board of Bishops was held inside seminary - Balaga office bearers. A2-Fr. William and others met board of Bishops - expressed their views that seminary must cater to the needs of students from Karnataka. In the same meeting Fr. K.J. Thomas was reappointed as Rector from 2012 to 2015. 7. During February 2012 when Annual meeting of Board of Bishops was held inside seminary - Balaga office bearers-A2-Fr. William, A7-Fr. Thomas, A8-Fr. C. Selvaraj, met board of Bishops -expressed their views that seminary must cater to the needs of students from Karnataka. In the same meeting Fr. K.J. Thomas was reappointed as Rector from 2012 to 2015. 8. In the month of July 2012 the Vatican authorities appointed three members committee that included Archbishop of Guwahati, Auxilary Bishop of Bombay, Bishop of Pune, to study the demands of the Kannada associations. 8. In the month of July 2012 the Vatican authorities appointed three members committee that included Archbishop of Guwahati, Auxilary Bishop of Bombay, Bishop of Pune, to study the demands of the Kannada associations. 9. A2-William Patrick and others prepared a representation in their letterheads and handed it over to the committee on 17-7-2012. The said representations depict the mens rea. 9. A12-Anthony Prasad and members of Santha Josephara Sangha had meetings with A2-William Patrick, A7-Fr. Thomas, A8-Fr. Chesara, A9-Fr. I. Anthappa and prepared a representation in their letterheads and handed it over to the committee on 17-7-2012. The said representations depict the mens rea. -NIL- (Representations culled out) 10. From 20-2-2013 to 22-2-2013 there was annual meeting of the Board of Bishops in the Seminary. 10. Thomas, A8-Fr. Chesara, A9-Fr. I. Anthappa and prepared a representation in their letterheads and handed it over to the committee on 17-7-2012. The said representations depict the mens rea. -NIL- (Representations culled out) 10. From 20-2-2013 to 22-2-2013 there was annual meeting of the Board of Bishops in the Seminary. 10. From 20-2-2013 to 22-2-2013 there was annual meeting of the Board of Bishops in the Seminary. On 19-2-2013 handbills were distributed to public that there is a protest on 20-2-2013. On 20-2-2013 Members of AKKCS raised slogans - Arch Bishop met them and said he would forward their demands to the Vatican. On 19-2-2013 handbills were distributed to public by A 1O-Rapheal Raj - that there is a protest on 20-2-2013. On 20-2-2013 Members of AKKCS raised slogans - Arch Bishop met them and said he would forward their demands to the Vatican. 11. Further many Representations were given to the Roman Catholic Religious Authorities, Ambassador of Vatican to India, Board of Bishops, Archbishop, etc. 11. Further many Representations were given to the Roman Catholic Religious Authorities, Ambassador of Vatican to India, Board of Bishops, Archbishop, etc. 12. -NIL- 12. On 29-3-2013 at 11 a.m. a group led by A1O-Rapheal Raj, A12-Antony Prasad, All-Reeta Reeni gathered at Town Hall and Protested. A2-William, A7-Fr. Thomas, A8-Fr. Chasara, A9-Fr. I. Anthappa were participants. 13. Conspiracy hatched along with their associates by A1 and A2 at Kengeri and other places to commit the murder. 13. - NIL - 14. On 31-3-2013 A1 to A5 went inside the Seminary at 11 p.m. The offence took place between 11 p.m. and 2 p.m. 14. -Nil-31-3-2013 murder took place. 15. -NIL- 15. The Arch Bishop promulgated a legislation relating to usage of languages the churches of Archdiocese Bangalore on 12-4-2015. The supporters of the accused persons burnt the circulars on 26-4-2015 in front of Church it Gudadahalli and St. Joseph Church at Bangalore. It is well-settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused. (See: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 , State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 305 ; Dr. (See: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 , State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 305 ; Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and Another, (1964) 2 SCR 336 ; State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 and M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Saraful Haque and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 122 .) And as laid down by the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case supra, where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Or when the un-controverted allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Or when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Courts could exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., to quash the proceedings. In the case on hand, when the case sought to be made out against accused nos. 1 to 5 itself was on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the case against the petitioners who are sought to be arrayed as accused nos. 6 to 12 (accused 8 is dead) the case against them stands even more diluted. This is especially so when it is noticed that the additional statements of witnesses referring to the association of the present petitioners with accused nos. 1 to 5 does not by itself make out a case against the accused. Even very strong suspicion on the basis that the petitioners had a long standing ill-will against the deceased, would not justify their arraignment as accused in the case. Nor the fact that they had closely associated with accused nos. 1 to 5 over time, would make out a case against them of the offences alleged. Even very strong suspicion on the basis that the petitioners had a long standing ill-will against the deceased, would not justify their arraignment as accused in the case. Nor the fact that they had closely associated with accused nos. 1 to 5 over time, would make out a case against them of the offences alleged. Further, the halfhearted initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners, after considerable lapse of time, when the statement of witnesses on which reliance was placed in presenting the additional charge-sheet, was already available when the main charge-sheet was filed, is yet another circumstance that would militate against the proceedings being initiated against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 157 of 2013 of the Yeshwanthpur Police Station and now pending in Case No. CC 27574/2015 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.