JUDGMENT : 1. This is the petition filed by petitioners/accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the complaint, FIR and charge sheet produced as per Annexures-A, B and C respectively and all further proceedings in Honnavar Police Crime No.287/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 332, 307 and 120B r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. on the file of J.M.F.C., Honnavar, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners that one Ashok R.Bhat, the then Range Forest Officer working at Honnavar against whom there were certain allegations to the Forest Minister, mainly that the said officer is mingled with the offenders in illegally cutting the forest trees and transporting them. Based on the said allegations, Ashok R.Bhat was suspended on 19.06.2006. So also there were certain Nilgiri and Rain trees were cut and instead of transporting the same to the Government Timber Yard, the said officer had transported or misappropriated them illegally for personal gains for which on an enquiry he was found guilty and he was made to pay an amount of Rs.47,348/- to the Government. These being the facts, the said Ashok R.Bhat suspected that petitioner No.1 has caused those serious allegations against him and was waiting for to take revenge and when petitioner No.1 herein had suffered major accident in which his left leg was fractured on 13.09.2011, who has undergone a major surgery at that time, misusing his official position and powers and acting in collusion with his supporting RFO namely Veerappa Gouda and Honnavar Police, concocted, created and hatched criminal cases to be filed initially against the petitioner No.1 and subsequently implicating his family members. The further averments that infact it was Ashok R.Bhat, ACF and his officers, who had assaulted the petitioner mercilessly though he was bedridden and unable to move at all. The allegations in the complaint are false and the very investigation is tainted and biased as such complaint, FIR and the charge sheet are clear abuse of judicial process and they are to be quashed. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. The allegations in the complaint are false and the very investigation is tainted and biased as such complaint, FIR and the charge sheet are clear abuse of judicial process and they are to be quashed. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments made the submission that earlier as there was illegal cutting and transportation of the trees belonging to the Government, by Ashok R.Bhat, the petitioner No.1 herein made the complaint to the Ministers and on the basis of the said complaint, the Forest Officer Ashok R.Bhat was kept under suspension and thereafter the departmental enquiry was also initiated against him and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.43,348/-. Counsel submitted that because of this reason and with the malafide intention Ashok R.Bhat was thinking to implicate petitioner No.1 and his family members into the false criminal cases. He also made the submission that when two persons were alleged of transporting the teakwood billets in their vehicle and it is the prosecution case that when they were apprehended by the police and enquired they made the statement that as per the instructions of petitioner No.1 herein, they are transporting the teakwood billets so as to hand over them to petitioner No.1. Learned counsel submitted that all these statements are false and it is only with an intention to implicate the petitioners in a false case. Learned counsel further submitted that on 13.09.2011 itself the petitioner No.1 met with an accident and his left leg was fractured and he has undergone major surgery and he was not in a position to move about. He also made the submission that even the prosecution material also goes to show that when the police had been to the house of petitioner No.1, he was having bandage to his left leg. Hence, the counsel submitted that when a man underwent major surgery still having a bandage to his left leg, it is unimaginable that he assaulted Ashok R.Bhat in his house when they visited his house for the purpose of making enquiry in the forest offence case. 5. Hence, the counsel submitted that when a man underwent major surgery still having a bandage to his left leg, it is unimaginable that he assaulted Ashok R.Bhat in his house when they visited his house for the purpose of making enquiry in the forest offence case. 5. The counsel draw the attention of this Court to the remand applications and further statements of the complainants on 2-3 occasions they themselves made it clear that it is a cooked up case only with an intention to take revenge against the petitioner No.1 and his family members, because petitioner No.1 made the allegation to the Forest Minister against Ashok R.Bhat and get him suspended. Learned counsel submitted that it is the clear abuse of process of the Court, there is no prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioners in the case and the prosecution material will not make out prima facie case as against any of the petitioners. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following two decisions filed along with memo dated 19.04.2017. i. (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 673 between Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan V/s Ram Gopal Poddar and another. ii. (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706 between Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another V/s Rajiv Dubey. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Govt. Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations made in the complaint and the further statements of the complainant and statement of other witnesses who accompanied Ashok R.Bhat to the residence of the petitioners clearly goes to show that the petitioner No.1 assaulted Ashok R.Bhat and the other family members also instigated and assisted petitioner No.1 in committing the said offences. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader further made the submission that when such allegations are there in the statement of witnesses who are the eyewitnesses to the incident and the material object iron rod is also seized during investigation, they clearly goes to show involvement of all the petitioners in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that looking to the prosecution material, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case or the proceedings are clear abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the learned High Court Govt. Hence, he submitted that looking to the prosecution material, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case or the proceedings are clear abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the learned High Court Govt. Pleader submitted that it is not the case to quash the proceedings by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, submitted to reject the petition. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the criminal petition, FIR, complaint, further statements of the complainant, remand applications and the other materials produced so also the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which are referred above and also considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel on both the sides at the Bar. 8. The contentions of the petitioners that as the Forest Officer Ashok R.Bhat involved in cutting and illegally transporting the forest trees without transporting them to the Government Department and utilized for his own personal gain, there was a complaint by petitioner No.1 to the Forest Minister as against said Ashok R.Bhat is concerned the petitioners produced the materials in support of the same. The document produced at Annexure-D1 on Page No.23 of the file goes to show that the reference at No.5 goes to show in the said letter dated 09.08.2012 that Sri Manjunath Devaru Bhat, Tenginakeri, Karki, Taluk Honnavar submitted the report to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 21.05.2012. I have also perused document Annexure-D dated 19.06.2016, which is issued from the Forest Department of the Government of Karnataka wherein said Forest Officer Ashok R.Bhat was kept under suspension and it was also observed in the said order that during the period of suspension he should not move outside the jurisdiction of Honnavar without prior permission of his superior officers. So these materials i.e. Annexure-D1 and D supports the contentions of the petitioners that on the complaint of petitioner No.1 the Forest Officer Ashok R.Bhat was kept under suspension. I have also perused materials i.e. the document Annexure-J, which was issued by the Doctor addressing to the Police Sub-Inspector, Honnavar Police Station, Honnavar dated 29.09.2011. The contents of this document goes to show that on 29.09.2011 morning at 9.30 a.m. in the fight said Manjunath Devaru Bhat sustained injuries to his stomach wherein it is also mentioned that earlier to that he got surgery to his left leg. The contents of this document goes to show that on 29.09.2011 morning at 9.30 a.m. in the fight said Manjunath Devaru Bhat sustained injuries to his stomach wherein it is also mentioned that earlier to that he got surgery to his left leg. Perused the document Annexure-H2 Wound Certificate issued by the Doctor dated 05.12.2012 which mentions the injuries i.e. “complaint of pain over the abdomen palm sized reddish mark seen over the middle of the abdomen with its base right side, POP cast below hip present on the leg (left) on examination of fracture being treated at private hospital earlier”. So these medial certificates and the averments in the petition goes to show prima facie that as contended by petitioners, petitioner No.1 met with an accident and there was a fracture of his left leg and petitioner No.1 underwent surgery for the same and even when Ashok R.Bhat along with complainant and other police and the staff allegedly went to the house of the petitioners even at that time they have seen petitioner No.1, who got the fractured injury to his left leg. 9. Perusing the FIR registered in Honnavar Police Station Crime No.287/2011, it is for the offence under Section 353 and 332 of I.P.C. as against petitioner No.1 herein when it was originally registered and the allegations are that on 29.09.2011 morning at 10.00 a.m. the complainant for the purpose of enquiry into the offence registered went along with Ashok R.Bhat and other staff to the house of the petitioner No.1 at Honnavar Karki and petitioner No.1 was sitting with bandage to his left leg and when they talked to petitioner all of a sudden he became enraged and emotional and with his right leg kicked Ashok R.Bhat on the chest portion and caused the pain and prevented the government officers in discharging their function. So this was the original case registered as against petitioner No.1 only. The main allegation that petitioner No.1 kicked with his right leg on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat. So this was the original case registered as against petitioner No.1 only. The main allegation that petitioner No.1 kicked with his right leg on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat. But looking to the further statement dated 29.09.2011 of the complainant wherein it is stated that at the time when petitioner No.1 kicked on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat, Kavita the wife of the petitioner No.1 and Sripad-brother of petitioner No.1 were also present there and one person who was having the spectacles was present there and he was giving the signal to the petitioner No.1 not to leave the said Ashok R.Bhat. There is again further statement on 30.09.2011 wherein it is introduced that petitioner No.1 with an intention to commit the murder of Ashok R.Bhat conspired with other persons namely Vittal Bhat and Kavita, who caught hold Ashok R.Bhat started to push him and then petitioner No.1 Manjunath Bhat along with Venkatesh Shet and Vittal Bhat so also Kavita stating that they should not leave the Ashok R.Bhat and to finish of him, petitioner No.1 assaulted Ashok R.Bhat with the iron rod on the left side chest portion and with his right leg he kicked to the private part of said Ashok R.Bhat. There is one more further statement produced as per Annexure-B3 dated 07.05.2012, which goes to show that the said Ashok R.Bhat was called to the police station and he identified the iron rod in the police station that it was held by petitioner No.1. This is after the lapse of nearly 8 months from the date of alleged incident. So these three further statements of the complainant goes to show improvement of the prosecution case by adding allegations one-by-one and even the iron rod was introduced with which petitioner No.1 alleged to have assaulted on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat whereas in the original complaint absolutely there is no whisper about the assault by the iron rod, but the allegation is that he kicked with his right leg on the chest portion. By such further statements, the other family members of the petitioner No.1 were also involved in the said case. By such further statements, the other family members of the petitioner No.1 were also involved in the said case. I have also perused the documents i.e. Annexure-K, which is the order sheet in HPS Crime No.287/2011, wherein it goes to show that Manjunath son of Devaru Bhat, resident of Karki produced on home office at 9.30 a.m. on 29.09.2011 through P.S.I. along with H.C.No.297 of Honnavar Police Station in an ambulance vehicle along with remand application and at that time the accused i.e. the petitioner No.1 herein complained about the assault by A.C.F.O., Honnavar i.e. Ashok R.Bhat. Even the wife of petitioner No.1 filed the complaint against Ashok R.Bhat before the police and when action was not taken by the police, she also filed private complaint, copies of which are also produced. I have also perused the remand applications, one remand application dated 29.09.2011 in the last paragraph it is stated that with an intention to commit the murder of Ashok R.Bhat, the accused kicked him with his right leg on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat and thereby caused pain to said Bhat. But looking to another remand application dated 03.10.2011 in the last paragraph, it is mentioned that the accused with an intention to commit the murder of Ashok R.Bhat having criminal conspiracy assaulted Ashok R.Bhat on the chest portion with the iron rod and made an attempt to commit his murder. So even looking to the contents of the remand application, there is no consistency so far as the commission of the alleged offences. At one stretch, it is their consistent case that he kicked with his right leg on the chest portion of Ashok R.Bhat, at another stretch it is the contention that he assaulted with iron rod on the chest portion. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused. In the decision reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673 in the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan V/s Ram Gopal Poddar and another, reads as under:- 10. The learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in contending that the complaint had to be quashed, firstly, because it was absurd and secondly, because the complainant-Respondent. 1 wholly lacks the bona fides in filing such complaint which was absurd. The learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in contending that the complaint had to be quashed, firstly, because it was absurd and secondly, because the complainant-Respondent. 1 wholly lacks the bona fides in filing such complaint which was absurd. The learned counsel for the Respondent 1 vehemently argued that at this stage, what was to be seen was only the contents of the complaint and if there appeared the basic contentions indicating committing of crime by the appellant/accused, then the Courts would not interfere with the same and leave the parties to lead evidence during the ensuing trial, relying on the oft-quoted decision in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. There can be no dispute about the law laid down in that case. However, where on the face of it the absurd charges are levelled and there is a whole lack of the bona fides of the complainant/Respondent 1, in our opinion, there would be no fetter in using the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. It was pointed out that the criminal revision against the issuance of summons was withdrawn. We were, therefore, taken to the High Court’s judgment, where the High Court has found itself to be powerless in view of the withdrawal of the criminal revision and had advised the parties to go back to the revisional Court and get it restored. We do not think that the High Court was justified in advising the appellant to go back to the Sessions Judge and to get the criminal revision revived without going into the question whether such revision could have been revived in law or not. We observe that the High Court was not powerless. The High Court itself was exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where the High Court could pass any order in the interests of justice. This power was available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only entertaining the revision application of the appellant under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court should have, therefore, applied its mind to the fact situation. It should have been realized that the complaint was wholly covered under the 7th circumstance in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, which is as under: (SCC p. 379, para 102) “102. It should have been realized that the complaint was wholly covered under the 7th circumstance in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, which is as under: (SCC p. 379, para 102) “102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” It was also covered under 3rd circumstance in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, which suggests: (SCC P.378, Para 102) “102. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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.” And another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC 706 in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another V/s Raji Dubey reads as under:- 19. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, it was, inter-alia, observed as follows: (SCC pp.378-79, para 102) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.” (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Considering all these factual aspects and the legal aspect involved in the case, I am of the opinion that the involvement of the petitioner No.1 and his family members in the said case is clearly with a malafide intention to take vengeance as against him, because he made complaint against Ashok R.Bhat to the Chief Minister about his illegal activities in cutting and transportation of the forest trees for his own personal gain. The initiation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but it is the clear abuse of the process of the Court. The materials placed on record clearly goes to show that there is no prima facie case as against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be a futile exercise on the part of the prosecution. Hence, petition is allowed. The proceedings i.e. complaint, FIR and the charge sheet filed in the case are hereby quashed.