ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint registered in crime No.368/2016 by Athani police for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner No.1 is not shown as accused in the aforesaid complaint. However, he is aggrieved by the complaint registered in crime No.368/2016 on the ground that the said complaint is false complaint registered by the police with ulterior motive in collusion with the complainant and a practicing advocate of Athani. 2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as under: Petitioner No.1 herein is the owner of a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48/M-904. The said car is used by his family. According to him, the person who regularly uses the car is the younger brother of the registered owner of the said car. The younger brother Somaling is arraigned as accused in crime No.368/2016 by Athani police. The accusation against the petitioner No.2 herein is on the basis of a complaint registered with Athani police on 23.09.2016 at about 7.45 p.m. The said complaint is lodged by a person named Shivappa s/o Kedari Vaghare respondent No.4 herein. According to him, on 22.09.2016 his cousin by name Hanamant who was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/EK-5004 was hit by the cruiser vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/M-904. The accident is said to have taken place at about 6.00 p.m. on 22.09.2016 on Athani-Parthanahalli road, near the garden of Hanji. In the complaint, it is stated that immediately after the accident, the driver of the cruiser vehicle after hitting the motorcycle did not stop the vehicle and ran away from the place. Accordingly, the complaint was filed seeking to apprehend the driver of the cruiser vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/M-904. It is necessary to mention that the complainant is said to be an eye-witness and he was also going on a vehicle behind the motorcycle driven by the victim Hanamant. According to him, he has seen the vehicle which caused the accident and which was driven away by its driver without stopping the same. The complaint also indicates that the victim was taken to the hospital for treatment at Athani and thereafter, he was taken to Miraj for further treatment. Though the complaint is filed on 23.09.2016, it is stated that nothing was done by the police till November 2016. 3. The complaint also indicates that the victim was taken to the hospital for treatment at Athani and thereafter, he was taken to Miraj for further treatment. Though the complaint is filed on 23.09.2016, it is stated that nothing was done by the police till November 2016. 3. It is stated that about 4-5 days prior to 23.11.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. when petitioner No.1 had gone to Telsang village to collect a gas cylinder, he received a phone call from his younger brother petitioner No.2 informing that police had come to their village for investigation of the cruiser vehicle involved in the accident and that the police wanted to speak with Mahadev and they took his telephone number. Thereafter, he says that he was informed by the police regarding the accident occurred near Athani and registration number of the vehicle which caused the accident is that of the vehicle standing in his name and therefore, they called him to go to Tubachi village immediately. 4. It is further stated that he enquired whereabouts of his brother and after coming to know that his brother is in panchayat office, he went there. It is at that time they were informed about the accident and petitioner No.1 was directed to send his car along with Somaling to the police station. In the police station, a police constable introduced himself as Sayyad who gives his contact number, instructed the uncle of the petitioners to be in touch with him. However, it is further stated that PSI after verifying the records of the car and noticing that the car of the petitioners is not involved in the accident, advised the police constable Sayyad to send petitioner No.2 with his car and to file a ‘B’ report in the said complaint. However, the constable Sayyad did not allow them to go and kept them in the police station. In the meanwhile, the victim was summoned to the police station and asked him to identify the vehicle. He could not identify the vehicle and informed that he noted the vehicle number and he has not seen the vehicle. Thereafter, the PSI and police constable inspected the vehicle and observed that no damage was caused to the vehicle. In the meanwhile, the victim was summoned to the police station and asked him to identify the vehicle. He could not identify the vehicle and informed that he noted the vehicle number and he has not seen the vehicle. Thereafter, the PSI and police constable inspected the vehicle and observed that no damage was caused to the vehicle. It is at that juncture, the complainant would indicate that he was informed by the victim that he has been advised by an advocate by name Vanajol, who paid him Rs.40,000/- and advised the petitioners to meet the advocate Vanajol, who is respondent No.3 in this proceedings. It is the said Vanajol advocate is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioners as the said amount is paid by him to the victim and also demanded another Rs.40,000/- for himself. Thereafter, it is stated that he would help the petitioners in getting the case registered against them is dropped. 5. Thereafter, it is stated that PSI who had earlier advised to file ‘B’ report, at the instance of the victim, complainant and police constable Sayyad advised the petitioners to bring the vehicle back next day for completing the formalities for filing the charge sheet. It is also stated that, next day, when they went to the police station, the police gave a letter addressed to RTO and asked them to get their vehicle tested and bring back the report for completing the formalities for filing the charge sheet. When all this brought to the notice of this Court, this Court summoned the PSI, police constable and also Mr. Vanajol an advocate who tried to mediate between the complainant and petitioners to settle an un-existing dispute by demanding a sum of Rs.40,000/- . When all the persons were present before the Court, they apologized to the entire episode and sought for pardon. This Court would observe that earlier on several occasions under similar circumstances, when this Court directed the higher authorities to hold an enquiry, in all those cases, the senior officers have given clean chit to the delinquent officers indicating that they are also parties to the said mafia. Therefore, this Court feel in the instant case taking this further is only wasting of time of the Court. 6. Therefore, this Court feel in the instant case taking this further is only wasting of time of the Court. 6. However, when this Court enquired the police to inform whether the victim Hanamant having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, it was informed to this Court by the victim’s uncle that the victim Hanamant was driving the motorcycle without having valid driving licence making it clear that the victim himself is the cause for the accident in riding the motorcycle without having valid driving licence. On the top of it, he would indicate that the vehicle involved in the accident is cruiser vehicle and it would further indicate that he was assisted by a counsel (practicing only in MVC cases) lodged the complaint one day after the accident to ensure that he would be able to get some compensation by filing false case before MACT. When they realized that the number of the vehicle stated in the complaint is not the cruiser vehicle as stated in the complaint and it is a maruti car, an attempt is made to extract money by the victim and as well as the advocate who assisted him. The conduct of the police officers and the advocate Vanajol is highly deplorable. In fact, this is a fit case where this Court will have to refer the matter to the Bar council to take appropriate action against Vanajol an advocate practicing in motor vehicle cases in Athani town. However, considering the fact that he pleaded guilty and undertakes not to indulge in such activities in future, this Court would quash the entire false complaint registered against the petitioners in crime No.368/2016. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 7. While doing so, this Court would warn the police and Vanajol advocate not to indulge in such kind of activities in future.