Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 965 (MP)

Somdatt Mishra v. State of M. P.

2018-11-16

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : 1. The present petition is preferred under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of F.I.R. dated 5-9-2015 lodged at the instance of the respondent No. 2 vide Crime No. 303/2015 against the petitioner under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under sections 354, 506 and 452 of Indian Penal Code was also sought to be quashed along with the pending proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh, District Morena. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (hereinafter referred as M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.). At the relevant point of time, in the year 2014-2015, he was posted at Kailaras, District Morena. According to the prosecution story, petitioner came at the house of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and caught hold of her hand and tried to outrage her modesty on 26-3-2015. On 27-3-2015 she made complaint to the Sub Divisional Officer, but said fact was not disclosed. On 28-8-2015, she again made complaint and F.I.R. was registered against the applicant on 5-9-2015 under sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the story of prosecution, petitioner, being Junior Engineer, went to the locality of respondent No. 2 to recover the due amount of electricity from the consumers and huge arrears/dues were pending over the husband of complainant-Vijendra Rajak. On 16-1-2015 subordinate staff of Assistant Engineer of company reached at the house of complainant to hand over a recovery notice to him regarding unpaid dues but he was not available at his house and in his place respondent No. 2 came out and his subordinate staff informed to her about the electricity dues of Rs. 25,864/- with respect to the Electricity Connection No. 72-11-67441 upto January, 2015 and it was also informed the consequence of not depositing the amount. The said notice placed with the petition as Annexure P/2. 4. It appears that respondent No. 2 and her husband did not deposit the said electricity dues for which information was earlier provided to them vide demand notice dated 16-1-2015 (Annexure P-2) then subordinate officers of Assistant Engineer have disconnected the electricity connection and disconnection notice/Panchnama dated 5-2-2015 vide Annexure P-3 was prepared. 4. It appears that respondent No. 2 and her husband did not deposit the said electricity dues for which information was earlier provided to them vide demand notice dated 16-1-2015 (Annexure P-2) then subordinate officers of Assistant Engineer have disconnected the electricity connection and disconnection notice/Panchnama dated 5-2-2015 vide Annexure P-3 was prepared. It further appears that Assistant Engineer, present petitioner and two other officers were on inspection of Purani Sabji Mandi of Kailaras and they found that complainant/respondent No. 2 has reconnected the electricity connection unauthorizedly from the electricity pole directly and using the electricity. Therefore, spot inspection report/panchanama dated 4-3-2015 vide Annexure P-4 was prepared in which it was found that respondent No. 2 has been found of committing electricity theft and specific fact regarding her conduct was referred in the said panchnama which was prepared as per section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as “the Act 2003”). One more fact was mentioned in the said panchnama that because of public protest no seizure could have been made. It is worth mentioning the fact that till that date no complaint at the instance of respondent No. 2 was made about the conduct of applicant or any other officers of the company. 5. For the first time on 26-3-2015 vide Annexure P-5 respondent No. 2 made a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sabalgarh, District Morena about the alleged rough behaviour of the petitioner. She has mentioned the fact that applicant reprimanded the complainant and turned her out from the office. On next date 27-3-2015 vide Annexure P-6, complaint has been registered by husband of respondent No. 2 in C.M. Help Line about the problem of his electricity connection on vide Annexure P-6. On 27-3-2015 Annexure P-7 itself, a complaint was lodged on behalf of petitioner about the conduct of respondent No. 2. When the petitioner and his staff visited the residence of respondent No. 2 for payment of dues then respondent No. 2 interrupted in the proceedings and with the help of people of the locality she intimated the officers and staff and did not allow the petitioner and his staff to disconnect the electricity connection taken unauthorizedly. The said complaint dated 27-3-2015 is written by the petitioner filed as Annexure P-7. 6. The said complaint dated 27-3-2015 is written by the petitioner filed as Annexure P-7. 6. From the pleadings, it further appears that on 10-7-2015 Annexure P-8, a private complaint under section 138-B and 135(1) of the Act, 2003 was filed in which cognizance has been taken against petitioner by the Court of Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) and District Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena on 3-8-2015 vide Annexure P-9. Thereafter, on 7-10-2015 vide Annexure P-10, complaint was made by the husband of respondent No. 2 before C.M. Helpline that his wife has filed the complaint dated 5-9-2015 for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner but no action has been taken on the said complaint (vide Annexure P-10). Therefore, it appears that on 5-9-2015 F.I.R. was registered (vide Annexure P-1), and therefore, this petition has been preferred. 7. It appears that during the pendency of this petition, charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore vide application dated 15-1-2018 (I.A. No. 497/2018) applicant brought charge-sheet on record and prayed for quashment of chargesheet filed against him under sections 354, 506 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh, District Morena was also sought to be quashed. 8. According to learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, it is the case of vexatious litigation and instituted because of electricity disconnection done by the petitioner and his staff for recovery of dues. In January, 2015 itself, amount of dues i.e. Rs. 25,864/- was informed which was to be paid by the husband of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, inspection was made on 5-2-2015 vide Annexure P-3 and her electricity connection was severed and despite repeated opportunity given, she not only ignored the payment of electricity dues but also reconnected the electricity connection unauthorizedly directly from the pole and when her electricity connection was tried to be disconnected then she took recourse to the false complaint to wreak vengeance over the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that no complaint was made between January 2015 till August, 2015 and complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 to the authorities (on which F.I.R. was registered) on 5-9-2015 for the first time. Even the complaint made by respondent No. 2 on 26-3-2015 vide Annexure P-5 nowhere suggests any allegation of section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Even the complaint made by respondent No. 2 on 26-3-2015 vide Annexure P-5 nowhere suggests any allegation of section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Only grievance was of misbehavior by the petitioner in his office when she visited for electricity connection. Therefore, registration of F.I.R. is an after thought. Even in the complaint of her husband dated 27-3-2015 at C.M. Help Line vide Annexure P-6, no such reference was made and the purpose of filing this complaint at belated stage was to exert pressure over the petitioner and officers of the company to get the electricity connection continued without paying the dues. 10. It was also submitted on behalf of petitioner that a private complaint for electricity theft was registered against the respondent No. 2 in which the Special Judge took cognizance, and therefore, to circumvent the fate of said cognizance, complaint has been filed. When complaint made by husband of respondent No. 2 on 7-10-2015 vide Annexure P/10, then police investigated the matter and took the statements of independent witnesses namely Ghanshyam Kadera and Shrilal Kadera who nowhere alleged any conduct of petitioner which comes under provision of section 354 of Indian Penal Code. They categorically denied the allegations against the petitioner. It was also referred that complainant is in habit of making complaints. It is a case of vexatious litigation and to wreak vengeance, therefore under the ambit of principles enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the reliance over the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and submitted that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and therefore, the Magistrate must apply his mind before proceedings further. Besides that, it was submitted that before proceedings with the case prior permission under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code ought to have been taken by the prosecution and the Court and in absence of any permission under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code proceedings could not have been initiated and continued against the applicant. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that such vexatious litigation ought to be nipped in the bud, otherwise it would be difficult for any Govt. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that such vexatious litigation ought to be nipped in the bud, otherwise it would be difficult for any Govt. officers specially officer/staff members of the Govt. Electricity Company to recover dues of electricity from the public, who may take recourse to such vexatious litigation, if asked for payment of dues. Protection to the officer must be given when facts of the case indicates that the proceedings under Act of 2003 were already started against the respondent No. 2. 13. He prayed for quashment of F.I.R, charge-sheet and proceedings pending before the trial Court. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/State, on the basis of documents, opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that trial would decide the innocence and culpability of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 filed very short reply and mainly submitted that trial is pending and petitioner has to face the trial, although to the various notices served over her husband, complainant informed this Court that her husband usually remained out of town, therefore, he could not pay the amount. Through notice of National Lok Adalat issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Morena, matter is likely to be settled between her husband and company for payment of electricity dues. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 17. It is the case where on the report lodged by the respondent No. 2, petitioner has to face the trial under sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and later on with addition of charge under section 452 of Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the documents appended with the petition as well as charge-sheet, it appears that it is a perfect case of abuse of process of law where respondent No. 2 resorted to this instant complaint just to avoid the payment of electricity dues and wreak vengeance over the petitioner for asking the dues. The said findings are supported by the discussion in following paragraphs. 18. Respondent No. 2 nowhere denied the facts that her husband received notice on 16-1-2015 Annexure P-2 issued by the Govt. Electricity Company (M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.) in which petitioner is an employee i.e. Junior Engineer. The said findings are supported by the discussion in following paragraphs. 18. Respondent No. 2 nowhere denied the facts that her husband received notice on 16-1-2015 Annexure P-2 issued by the Govt. Electricity Company (M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.) in which petitioner is an employee i.e. Junior Engineer. On 5-2-2015 Annexure P-3, electricity connection was severed because of pendency of electricity dues of Rs. 25,864/-. On 4-3-2015, spot was visited and spot inspection report vide Annexure P-4 prepared. Till then, complainant had not complained about the misbehaviour of petitioner. Even on 26-3-2015 (Annexure P-5), when she made her first attempt of complaints that too before inappropriate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sabalgarh then also she nowhere referred misbehavior constituting offence under section 354 of Indian Penal Code, whereas that was the date when the alleged incident occurred and she could have easily mentioned the said facts. But she did not prefer to do so. Here, her motive instantly comes to doubt and establishes the facts that her complaint was an after thought. In her complaint, she referred that she made complaint on 26-8-2015 against the petitioner on which no action was taken but before that on 10-7-2015 vide Annexure P-8 by the signature of petitioner, a private complainant under section 138-B and 135(1) of the Act, 2003 was preferred in which the Special Judge took cognizance on 3-8-2015 and summons have been issued against the petitioner and next date was fixed on 4-12-2015. Summoning of complainant precipitated the filing of false complaint and cooking a false story to wriggle out of the problem went into because of electricity theft committed by her. 19. One more fact is staring at the allegation of the complainant to show her ill motive, is that complaint filed by her husband on 27-3-2015 Annexure P-6 in which he complained of dispute in electricity bill and on 27-3-2015, her husband nowhere referred the alleged incident of misbehavior constituting under section 354 of Indian Penal Code. In fact, on 27-3-2015, a police complaint was made on behalf of company to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kailaras (Annexure P-7) to take action against the complainant for disrupting public work, abusing and intimidating the petitioner and his staff when the parties visited her house for payment of electricity dues and to cut the unauthorized electricity connection. In fact, on 27-3-2015, a police complaint was made on behalf of company to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kailaras (Annexure P-7) to take action against the complainant for disrupting public work, abusing and intimidating the petitioner and his staff when the parties visited her house for payment of electricity dues and to cut the unauthorized electricity connection. Therefore, his complaint has resulted into inconvenience to the complainant, therefore, she cooked a false story to get out of such litigation. 20. Perusal of charge-sheet further reveals that statements of the eye witnesses recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code Ghanshyam Kadera and Shrilal Kadera nowhere supported the story of the prosecution. Lineman Munsi Lal Dhakad also made a statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and narrated the course of the events. It has been specifically mentioned that at the time of electricity disconnection on 5-2-2015, complainant tried to misbehave with the officers vis-a-vis petitioner and the same is with Rajendra Singh Sikarwar. The same facts appear in the statement of Sandeep Shakya. These witnesses have nowhere supported the prosecution story and made doubts over the contents of statements and F.I.R. Therefore, it is crystal clear that complainant suffered electricity disconnection and when officers tried to disconnect the electricity connection, then she made a false complaint to settle the score and exert pressure. 21. The inherent powers of High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are immense although to be exercised sparingly with caution The said spirit is echoed in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2017 SC 1884 . Judicial process is a solemn proceedings which cannot be allowed to be converted into instrument of oppression and harassment. Here, it appears that complainant abused the process of law to harass the petitioner to get benefit for electricity dues. This is something which cannot be countenanced in any manner because it affects the very fabric of rule of law. The person must obey the imposition of dues, and it is the duty of every citizen of the country to discharge his obligation by payment of dues/tax for the services rendered by the State, to the citizen. 22. This is something which cannot be countenanced in any manner because it affects the very fabric of rule of law. The person must obey the imposition of dues, and it is the duty of every citizen of the country to discharge his obligation by payment of dues/tax for the services rendered by the State, to the citizen. 22. The question of delay also assumes importance in the present case once seen in juxtaposition to the facts narrated in the petition as well as in the documents of the respondent/State. Once the alleged attempt to outrage the modesty of complainant occurred on 26-3-2015 then it ought to have been reported then and there only, and not on 26-8-2015, for the first time that too after five months. Attempt of outraging the modesty of woman is such an ugly and psychologically painful affair for a woman in which any female wants the event to be reported to her family members, her acquaintances, relatives or authorities at the earliest to get justice and to get the miscreants punished, unless any overwhelming reason exists for not making the complaint immediately or unless she has been restrained to lodge the complaint or raise her protest for some cogent reason. 23. Here, such delay assumes further importance for the reason that on 26-3-2015, she made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh but nowhere mentioned the alleged attempt of petitioner about outraging her modesty. This conspicuous silence further affirmed assertion of petitioner that he has been falsely prosecuted for an offence which he never committed and he is facing trial only to perform his official duties as public servant. 24. When a complainant is restrained by the public authority to commit any illegal act and with motive to overcome such situation, any complaint under section 354 of Indian Penal Code or like nature has been filed against the public servant, then it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate thoroughly and reach to the motive for which the complaint has been filed against the public servant. 25. 25. Harassment of the public servant on pretext of false complaint at the instance of or in hands of those, who were restrained by the public servant for committing illegal and unauthorized act, is anathema to the Rule of Law and it is the duty of the Investigation, Prosecution and Competent Criminal Court to look into the allegations objectively while considering the background of the case and not in a routine manner. Order of Court, summoning an accused must reflect application of mind. 26. Investigation, prosecution and criminal Court must apply their mind objectively in the facts and circumstances of the case about such false and frivolous complaints filed at the instance of disgruntled elements of society who intimidate the Govt. officers to perform their official duties in the State of M.P. Similarly to avoid payment of electricity dues or to get the electricity connection restored (unauthorizedly directly through the electricity pole) and if any officer reminds the person for his duties to pay electricity dues then result comes in such form of false complaints. Therefore, Investigation (Police) Prosecution (Govt. Prosecutor) and Competent Criminal Court must take into accounts such facts before proceedings with the registration of case or prosecution of the case. 27. Although in a case where a public servant performs his duties in official capacity then he ought to be given protection under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and the said principle has been very luculently clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 557 in which the following observations are worth reproduction:- “6. The protection given under section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty, if the answer to his question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of section 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case.” 28. Although here the ingredients of section 354 of Indian Penal Code were alleged, and therefore, if any officer allegedly commits such act it cannot be termed as the act committed in furtherance of the Govt./Official Duties, therefore, on this count, submissions of the petitioner can not accepted regarding section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code for taking permission, but the said aspect has not been dealt with here, because this Court is convinced about the vexatious nature of litigation filed by the complainant either to wreak vengeance or to exert pressure over the officers of the electricity company (Govt. Company) and to discourage them to ask for electricity dues and therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed instantly so that petitioner may not suffer any rigors of prosecution and trial. 29. The Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (supra) guided the Courts that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set in motion, as a matter of course on mere asking because complainant entered the witness box and brought two witnesses in support therein. The order of Magistrate, summoning an accused must reflect application of mind. The Court is required to examine the nature of allegations made by the complainant and also the evidence both, oral and documentary in support thereof. 30. The order of Magistrate, summoning an accused must reflect application of mind. The Court is required to examine the nature of allegations made by the complainant and also the evidence both, oral and documentary in support thereof. 30. This Court has sufficient power to exercise under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, exercising powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code as well as in terms of section 483 of Criminal Procedure Code, F.I.R. charge-sheet and pending proceedings deserve to be quashed. Complaint of the complainant suffers from mischief, falsehood and vexatious litigation. 31. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court has culled out the principles which are reproduced for ready reference as under:- In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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: (1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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. Principles No. 5 and 7 are clearly applicable in the present case. 32. The Apex Court in the case of Priya Vrat Singh and Others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232 , Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others, (2008) 14 SCC 1 and Rajib Ranjan and Others vs. R. Vijaykumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513 followed the principles enumerated in the case of Bhajanlal (supra). 33. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contents of the charge-sheet and documents appended thereto meant for harassment only especially when preliminary inquiry was conducted by the police authority and closed the complaint. Said fact is contained in the details of the complaint made by husband of complainant on dated 7-10-2015 (vide Annexure P-10) where police found the complaint as false and frivolous. Although the police authority has also referred the nature of complainant who used to make complaints repeatedly and petitioner also referred a criminal complaint registered at her instance against one Kok Singh Rajak and Ajjo Rajak in year 2017 in almost same terms but this Court is not concerned with the pendency of said case and has not concluded on the basis of such complaint. Other overwhelming documents and events established the frivolousness of complaint made by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. 34. Other overwhelming documents and events established the frivolousness of complaint made by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. 34. Resultantly, FIR registered vide Crime No. 303/2017 at Police Station Kailaras, District Morena for alleged offices under sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as the charge-sheet filed by the respondent No. 1/State for the alleged offences under sections 354, 506 and 452 (added) of Indian Penal Code and pending proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh, District Morena deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed and petitioner is exonerated from all such charges. 35. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of M.P., Bhopal, Director General of Police, Bhopal and Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Gwalior for information purpose. 36. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.