Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 967 (KAR)

Jaiprakash Narain v. State of Karnataka

2018-09-15

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J. 1. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 350/2014 by the Halasur Gate Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The chronology of events leading to the petition are recapitulated here below: SL. NO DATE EVENTS 1. 24-02-1989 The marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs 2. Dec 1989 The 1st daughter by name Harsha Narain was born. She has now completed her BE and pursuing her Master Degree in USA. 3. 20-10-1995 The 2nd daughter by name Moksha Narain was born. She has now completed her P.U.C and pursuing her Degree course. 4. 19-01-2003 The 3rd daughter by name Deepansha Narain was born and she in now pursuing her studies in the High School. 5. 06-06-2007 The 2nd Respondent-wife deserted the company of petitioner No.1-husband and all the above said daughters. 6. 07-03-2012 The 2nd Respondent/wife took the 3rd daughter Deepansha Narain along with her. 7. April 2012 The 2nd Respondent/wife took 2nd daughter Moksha Narain along with her. Subsequently the 1st daughter Harsha Narain also join the 2nd Respondent/wife. 8. 10-05-2012 Petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint with Basaveshwaranagar police station. At that time, the 2nd Respondent and the three daughters were secured in the police station. The 2nd daughter came back with the petitioner/father and 1st and 3rd daughter went along with the 2nd Respondent/mother. 9. 17-06-2012 The 1st daughter Harsha Narain came back from the house of the 2nd Respondent. 10. 23-08-2012 Petitioner No.1 filed G & WC No. 174/2012 on the file of III Additional Prl. Family judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking custody of the minor daughter Deepansha Narain from the custody of the 2nd Respondent/wife. 11. 23-08-2012 Petitioner No.1/husband file MC No. 3094/2012 on the file III additional Prl. Family judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking divorce from the 2nd Respondent/wife under section 12(1)(i) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. in the said petition, the petitioner No. 1 herein has led his evidence and the case is now at the stage of recording further evidence. 12. 28-04-2014 The III Additional Prl. Family judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking divorce from the 2nd Respondent/wife under section 12(1)(i) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. in the said petition, the petitioner No. 1 herein has led his evidence and the case is now at the stage of recording further evidence. 12. 28-04-2014 The III Additional Prl. Family judge, Family Court, Bengaluru after giving a finding that the 2nd Respondent is living an adulterous life and that she has deserted petitioner No. 1 and his children on 06-06-2007 and that petitioner No.1/father has been looking after the welfare of all the three daughters, allowed the G & WC 174/2012 and directed the 2nd Respondent/wife to hand over the custody of the minor child Deepansha Narain to petitioner No. 1 within 15 days. 13. 05-06-2014 In MFA No. 3506/2014 filed by the 2nd Respondent/wife challenging the above said judgment and order in G & WC No. 174/2012, a joint Memo of compromise was filed under which the 2nd Respondent herein was given visitation rights to visit the children on every last Sunday of the month from 10.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble court was pleased to dispose off the appeal as per the above said joint Memo. 14. 26-10-2014 @ 3:20pm The 2nd Respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st Respondent-Ulsoor Gate police station against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under section 8 of the POSCO Act and Section 354-A of Indian penal code alleging that the petitioner had molested the minor child Deepansha Narain along with other petitioner. 15. 30-10-2014 Since the Respondent No.2/mother did not return the child in terms of the order in MFA, the petitioner No. 1 approached this Court by filing C.C.C No. 1465/2014 against respondent No. 2. 16. 30-10-2014 The petitioner No.1 husband filed an IA in MFA 3506/2014 seeking modification of the order passed in MFA on joint memo, as the Respondent No.2/wife had violated the same, by not returning the child back to husband. 17. 30-10-2014 Respondent No. 2 approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing Review petition No 1247/2014 in MFA. 3506/2014, seeking review of the final order passed in the MFA, which was passed pursuant to a joint memo. 18. 17. 30-10-2014 Respondent No. 2 approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing Review petition No 1247/2014 in MFA. 3506/2014, seeking review of the final order passed in the MFA, which was passed pursuant to a joint memo. 18. 31-10-2014 Petitioners having come to know about the registration of FIR against them filed Misc No. 6333/2014 on the filed of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru seeking Anticipatory bail. 19. 05-11-2014 In RP No. 1247/2014 filed by the 2nd Respondent, at the stage of admission itself, the Division Bench directed the 2nd Respondent/wife to approach the Family Court and seek for the custody of the minor child, if the petitioner No.1/husband has committed any offence against the minor child. 20. 05-12-2014 The Respondent No.2/wife later approached the Family by filing G & WC No. 295/2014 seeking custody of the minor child, making registration of above FIR as the ground. 21. 18-12-2014 The Division Bench of this Court directed the wife to keep the child present before the Court in CCC No. 1465/2014 (Civil). The Respondent No. 2 herein raised the plea of registration of FIR as above, however the Division Bench directed respondent No. 2 to handover the custody of the child to the father and later was pleased to record that the minor daughter Deepansha Narain was handed over back to the custody of 1st petitioner and the Contempt petition was closed. 22. 08-04-2015 In the above referred G & WC No. 295/2014 the 4th Additional principal Family judge, Family court, Bengaluru passed a detailed order rejecting I.A. No 2 filed by the 2nd Respondent and refused to grant interim custody of the minor child in favor of the 2nd Respondent/wife. 23. 24-07-2015 Being aggrieved by the above order, Respondent No. 2 approached this Court in WP. No 21570/2015. After hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to issue Rule and refused to grant interim custody of the minor children to the 2nd Respondent herein. 24. 25-04-2016 The minor child Deepansha Narain was secured before this Court and this Court was pleased to discuss with the child during the lunch hours and ascertain the wishes of the minor child. The minor child has stated that she wants to stay with the father/1st Petitioner and that she is comfortable with the father the said observation has been recorded in there order-sheet. 25. The minor child has stated that she wants to stay with the father/1st Petitioner and that she is comfortable with the father the said observation has been recorded in there order-sheet. 25. 27-07-2016 This Court referred the present matter to mediation, with a direction to the mediator to interview the minor child Ms. Deepansha Narain and to record the circumstances under which the child is said to have written the latter to second respondent of being molested by her father and other inmates of her house, ad whether there is any house, and whether there is any element of truth in the same and submit her report thereof. 26. 11-08-2016 Smt. Sheela S.Rao, mediator, Bangalore Mediation Centre, submitted a confidential report with observations inter alia that MS. Deepansha Narain, "...disclosed to me that she had written letters addressed to her mother, as dictated by her and due to her compulsion" "...during such visitation rights during Sundays at her home, mother used to dictate 4-6 letters and she wrote about 5 letters as per mother's dictation.." “…Kum. Deepasha has clearly revealed to us that there is no element of truth in any of those letters and all the allegations, including the molestation are absolutely false..." 3(i) It is in this background I have to find out, whether the allegations made against the petitioners leading to the registration of above the FIR in Crime No. 350/2014 is an abuse of the process of Court or whether the said allegations prima facie constitute the criminal offence under section 354A of Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act which require to be investigated by the police? 3(ii) In order to answer this question, it may be necessary to refer to the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 which is extracted verbatim herein below. It reads as follows:- To: Station House Officer, Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru-02. I, Madhavi W/o Jai Prakash Narain residing in No. 15, 5th Main, Ganganagar, Bengaluru-560032 (PH: 9739324166) I was married to Jai Prakash in the year 1989, out of our wedlock we have three daughters 1) Harsha 24 years 2) Moksha 19 years 3) Deepansha 11 years. Till 2006 we lived happily and in the year 2006 there occurred huge business loss and due to this business loss my husband started harassing me and demanded money which my family also assisted him financial. Till 2006 we lived happily and in the year 2006 there occurred huge business loss and due to this business loss my husband started harassing me and demanded money which my family also assisted him financial. But he was greed and later filed divorce case against me which is still pending in the Court. In 2012 G & W.C case was filed and the custody of my minor child Deepansha was given to Jai Prakash and the court had given me visitation rights to meet my daughter. Deepansha last Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and on 23rd October 2014 my daughter was sexually abused by cook Uday and her uncle R.D. Singh. Even earlier my daughter was also being touched to her private parts by her father Jai Prakash in his farm house and my daughter had written letters regarding the same. The copy of letter is also attached. I being a mother did not want to expose this has it would damage my daughter's education and reputation and to-day on 26.10.2014 has I had my visitation rights to meet my daughter, I took her around 10.00 a.m. and she started crying and when I asked her the reason why she was crying, she narrated that on 23.10.2014 her father had again done the same heinous act by touching her private parts. So I could not bear the same and I am lodging this complaint. So I request you to take action in accordance with law and give protection to my daughter and me. The above said incident was at my husband's residence. No. 100, 5th Cross, Grihalaxmi Layout, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru-79. Bengaluru 26.10.2014 Yours faithfully, Sd/- Madhavi 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the allegations made against the petitioners in the above complaint are utterly absurd, incredible and inherently improbable. These allegations are obliquely motivated and are calculated to create evidence in the custody case filed by the second respondent in G & WC No. 295/2014. The letter said to have been written by the minor daughter of the complainant is stated to be the basis for the complainant to approach the police with the above complaint. But, during the course of hearing, this Court has ascertained from the child that the said letters were got written by the complainant herself to sub-serve her vested interests. The letter said to have been written by the minor daughter of the complainant is stated to be the basis for the complainant to approach the police with the above complaint. But, during the course of hearing, this Court has ascertained from the child that the said letters were got written by the complainant herself to sub-serve her vested interests. Under the said circumstances, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is a clear misuse of the legal machinery and an abuse of the process of the court. The said allegations have resulted in casting serious aspersion on the character and conduct of the petitioners. These proceedings therefore cannot be allowed to continue and thus he has sought for quashing of the FIR and the consequent investigation undertaken by the first respondent -Police. 5. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in STATE OF HARYANA & Others v. BHAJAN LAL & Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and with reference to clause (5) of paragraph 102, has emphasized that 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, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as held in the above decision. Further he contends that the allegations made against the petitioners emanate from the petition filed by the second respondent seeking custody of the minor child in G & WC No. 174/2012. It is an attempt to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case which again is a misuse and an abuse of process of the court. In support of this contentions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajib Ranjan & Others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1 SCC 513 . 6. It is an attempt to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case which again is a misuse and an abuse of process of the court. In support of this contentions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajib Ranjan & Others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1 SCC 513 . 6. On the power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to interfere with the investigation, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the case law in Kedar Narayan Parida & Others v. State of Orissa & Another (2009) 9 SCC 538 , Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( 2013 9 SCC 293 , M. Saravana Porselvi v. A.R. Chandrashekar alias Parthiban & Others (2008) 11 SCC 520 , Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Others (2005) 6 SCC 281 and Priyanka Srivastava & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2015) 6 SCC 287 . 7. Further, relying on the reports submitted by the Mediation Centre, learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that Kumari. Deepansha Narain who is said to be the victim of the alleged offence has clearly revealed to the Mediator that during the visitation right on Sundays, the second respondent used to dictate 4-6 letters and she wrote about five letters as per her mother's dictation. The Mediator has submitted a report in unequivocal terms that "Kumari Deepansha has clearly revealed to us that there is no element of truth in any of those letters and all the allegations, including the molestation are absolutely false." This finding leads to the inevitable conclusion that the respondent has viciously tried to use her minor daughter to sub-serve her vested interests. Nonetheless, the minor daughter herself having narrated the circumstances in which the said letters have come into existence, there is no basis for the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation. In the light of the report submitted by the learned Mediator to this Court, continuance of the investigation in Crime No. 350/2014 would be a futile exercise. Thus he has made a fervent plea to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings arising there from. 8. In the light of the report submitted by the learned Mediator to this Court, continuance of the investigation in Crime No. 350/2014 would be a futile exercise. Thus he has made a fervent plea to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings arising there from. 8. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent has put forth the following contentions: (i) Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court to collect evidence either for or against the contents of the FIR. It amounts to entering into the arena of investigation/enquiry which is the statutory function of the Investigating Agency under section 156 to 173 of Cr.P.C. On this point, learned counsel has referred to the decision in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017)2 SCC 779 . (ii) The allegations made in the FIR clearly make out the ingredients of the offences under sections 354A of Indian Penal Code and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In support thereof, she has produced the letter written by the minor daughter narrating the mis-behaviour of the petitioners. The correctness of the allegation made therein cannot be decided either by the mediator or by this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The daughter of the complainant was aged 11 years. The offences committed by the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Act prescribes separate procedure for investigation into the offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act. After the registration of the case, the statement of the minor was recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She was examined by the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein the minor has reiterated the allegations found in the letters written by her. Therefore, there is sufficient material to proceed with the investigation. (iii) The contention of the petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners are ulteriorly motivated to create evidence to obtain the custody of the minor child is patently false. The child herself has narrated the misdeeds of the petitioner before the Magistrate. This statement has probative value. The procedure adopted by this court to refer the child to the mediation and to call for the report of the mediators is contrary to the provisions of the code. The child herself has narrated the misdeeds of the petitioner before the Magistrate. This statement has probative value. The procedure adopted by this court to refer the child to the mediation and to call for the report of the mediators is contrary to the provisions of the code. 9. Placing copious reliance to the decision of this Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2 SCC 779 with reference to paragraph Nos. 1, 13, 15, 16, 24 and 25 as well as in Bhajanlal's case AIR 1992 SC 604 in para 109 and 111, learned counsel has emphasized that the order dated 27.07.2016 and the report of the Mediation Centre dated 11.08.2016 are extralegal. The said report cannot be relied on to decide the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the FIR registered against the petitioners cannot be set at naught based on the report of the Mediation Centre. The said report has no legal sanctity and on the basis of the said report, FIR cannot be quashed. In her counter statement, the second respondent has further stated that the report of the Mediation Centre is seriously disputed by the second respondent and as such, the said report cannot be relied upon to quash the FIR which is being investigated by the authorities competent under the Code to investigate into the said allegations. 10. In the light of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the crucial questions that falls for consideration are: (1) Whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends to call for a report of a Mediator to test the truth or falsity of the allegations constituting criminal offences? (2) Whether the allegations made in the FIR make out sufficient grounds for proceeding with the investigation in Crime No. 350/2014? 11. In so far as the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, is now well established that while exercising the powers under section 482 of Code, the High Court does not function as the Court of appeal or revision. 11. In so far as the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, is now well established that while exercising the powers under section 482 of Code, the High Court does not function as the Court of appeal or revision. The inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is also a settled proposition that the wholesome power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 12. In STATE OF KARNATAKA v. L. MUNISWAMY & Others reported in 1977 Cri.L.J. 1125 it is observed as under: "The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution." In the said case, it has been further observed, "ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature." 13. In MACHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA & Others v. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE & Others reported in 1988 Cri.L.J. 853, it is held that: "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the un-controverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue." 14. In STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M. DEVENDRAPPA & Another reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89 , it was observed that, while exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Such power has to be exercised sparingly and ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. It was further observed that the authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. 15. In the instant case, second respondent has initiated criminal action against the petitioners on the specific allegations that the petitioners misbehaved with the minor daughter of the second respondent. No doubt, these allegations attract the offences punishable under section 354A of Indian Penal Code and section 8 of POCSO Act and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent that it is the prerogative of the police to investigate into the allegations made against the petitioners and to collect evidence in proof of the charges in accordance with provisions of the Code. In UNION OF INDIA v. PRAKASH P. HINDUJA (2003) 6 SCC 195 , it is held that even the Magistrate could not interfere with the investigation and by virtue of Chapter XII of the Code, the manner and method of conducting investigation has been left entirely to the police authorities. It was also held that formation of opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the Magistrate or not as contemplated by sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. is to be that of the officer in charge of the Police Station and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at this stage. 16. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with that of a Magistrate. 16. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with that of a Magistrate. Section 482 cannot be construed so narrowly so as to render High Court powerless when investigation is seized by the police. As held the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in STATE OF TELANGANA v. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & Others (2017) 2 SCC 779 that once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. However, inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provisions itself. The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. 17. In para 51 of the decision in KEDAR NARAYAN PARIDA v. STATE OF ORISSA (2009) 9 SCC 538 , Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in ABHINANDAN JHA v. DINESH MISHRA AIR 1968 SC 117 , has held as under: "While indicating that the courts should not intervene in matters of investigation, which, under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been vested in the police authorities, an exception has also been made that in certain circumstances the court could intervene in order to do justice to the parties." In para 52 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has proceeded to observe as under: "As we have observed in other cases, the courts and in particular the High Court, are the guardians of the life and liberty of the citizens and if there is any flavor or deliberate misuse of the authority vested in the investigating authority, the High Court or this Court may certainly step in to correct such injustice or failure of justice. Such a view was indicated in Comptroller and Auditor General of India case as far as back as in 1986 when on the failure of the administrative machinery a mandamus had to be issued by this Court to grant relief to the petitioner to which he was entitled from the said authorities, and also in H.S. Bains case referred to hereinbefore." 18. The parameters for exercise of power are summarized in para 19 of the judgment in (2017) 13 SCC 369 VINEET KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER as under: "19. The section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts." 19. In view of the above proposition of law, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the High Court has no power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the report of the Mediator to test the veracity or falsity of the allegations leading to the initiation of criminal action is liable to be rejected out rightly. Point No. 1 therefore is answered in the affirmative. 20. Coming to the second point framed for consideration, undisputedly, the very basis for the second respondent to approach the police authorities with a complaint against the petitioners are the letters said to have been written by her minor daughter complaining of the certain mis-behaviour. The minor daughter has reiterated these allegations during her examination by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also before the learned Magistrate while giving her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. But when this Court interacted with the minor child in the presence of her parents namely the second respondent and the petitioner No. 1, the minor child has expressed her desire to stay with her father. The relevant observation made by this Court in the order sheet dated 25.4.2016 in this regard reads as follows: "Minor child Kum. Deepansha Narain and her parents appeared before the Court. The relevant observation made by this Court in the order sheet dated 25.4.2016 in this regard reads as follows: "Minor child Kum. Deepansha Narain and her parents appeared before the Court. I discussed with them in the chambers during lunch hour and ascertained the wishes of the minor child. The minor child wants to stay with her father. She states that she is comfortable with her father. The mother also wants custody of the minor child." 21. In view of the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the second respondent, by a subsequent order dated 29.5.2016, it was clarified that the observation made in the order sheet dated 25.4.2016 was meant only for the purpose of this case and it was made in connection with this case. Parties were put on caveat that the above observation shall not be used in any other proceedings. 22. From the order dated 29.5.2016 it is clear that this court has taken necessary precaution to ensure that the observation made by this court is not misused by any of the parties in other pending proceedings. Apparently taking cue from this order, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has built up an argument that the observations made by this Court in these proceedings and the subsequent report called for by this from the Mediator cannot be relied on by this Court to quash the proceedings arising out of Crime No. 350/2014. This argument, in my opinion, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The order sheet indicate that an attempt was made by this Court to resolve the controversy by interacting with the parties as well as the minor whose cause was espoused by the second respondent. Even though there was a direction to the parties not to make use of the observation of this Court in any other proceedings, that does not preclude this court from taking action on the basis of the response elicited from the parties and the report secured by it from the Mediation Centre. Even though there was a direction to the parties not to make use of the observation of this Court in any other proceedings, that does not preclude this court from taking action on the basis of the response elicited from the parties and the report secured by it from the Mediation Centre. No doubt it is true that the proceedings before the Mediator is confidential in nature and the Mediator is not entitled to divulge the details of the proceedings of the mediation, but in the instant case, the parties were not referred to the Mediation for resolution of their dispute, rather this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. had referred the matter for mediation. It was an order ex debito justitiae to do real justice. The order dated 27.07.2016 reads as follows: "The matter is referred to mediation. The parties and their counsel shall appear at the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru, along with Kum. Deepansha Narain, who shall be interviewed by a mediator in the right atmosphere. The mediator shall record the circumstances under which the child is said to have written the letter to the second respondent of being molested by her father and other inmates of her house, and whether there is any element of truth in the same and submit her report thereof. The parties and the counsel shall appear along with the child before the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru, on 8.8.2016." 23. As could be seen from the above order, the terms of reference for the Mediator were specified and the Mediator was called upon to record the circumstances under which the child is said to have written the letters to the second respondent of being molested by her father and other inmates of her house. This order makes it abundantly clear that the Mediator was assigned the task of interviewing the child as an Officer of the Court. By this order, this Court did not constitute a third agency to investigate into the alleged offence as erroneously contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent. By virtue of the said order, the Mediator was not required to perform the functions of an Investigating Officer or to collect any evidence in support of the accusations made in the FIR. By virtue of the said order, the Mediator was not required to perform the functions of an Investigating Officer or to collect any evidence in support of the accusations made in the FIR. It is also not the case of the second respondent that the Mediator has conducted any investigation into the alleged offences within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Cr.P.C. The report submitted by the Mediator therefore cannot be characterized as "investigation" or "collection of evidence" as contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent. 24. The High Court as the guardian of life and liberty of citizens is well within its power to step in and intervene at any stage of the investigation when an attempt is shown to have been made to abuse the investigating machinery. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the report called for by this Court amounts to interference in the investigation and tantamounts to collection of evidence cannot be countenanced. The Mediator has merely carried out the directions of this court and has submitted a report. The said report therefore cannot be assailed on the purported ground that the Mediator was not entitled to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 25. The relevant portion of the report submitted by the Mediator reads as follows: "3. After sending them, I spent more than 45 minutes in the room. I made her to feel comfortable. She speaks good English and Hindi, and also knows Kannada. I checked up her educational background and her hobbies etc. Later, I began to slowly ask her about her family. The girl seemed to be little nervous initially but she began to converse with me freely. She disclosed to me that she had written letters addressed to her mother, as dictated by her and due to her compulsion.... xxx Ms. Deepansha Narain disclosed to me that she had written letters addressed to her mother, as dictated by her and due to her compulsion. She has disclosed that her mother though loves her, strongly hates her father. Further, she has revealed that during such visitation during Sundays at her home, mother used to dictate 4-6 letters and she wrote them and on another Sunday she wrote about 5 letters as per mother's dictation...." xxx Kum. She has disclosed that her mother though loves her, strongly hates her father. Further, she has revealed that during such visitation during Sundays at her home, mother used to dictate 4-6 letters and she wrote them and on another Sunday she wrote about 5 letters as per mother's dictation...." xxx Kum. Deepansha has clearly revealed to us that there is no element of truth in any of those letters and all the allegations, including the molestation are absolutely false. xxx Deepansha has stated that her mother took her to Ulsoor Gate Police Station and made her to give statement in terms of the letter. She has given similar statement before the Magistrate...." 26. The contents of this report leave no manner of doubt that an attempt has been made by the second respondent to foist false criminal charges against the petitioners on the strength of the letters said to have been written by her minor daughter. But this Court having ascertained that the said letters have been brought about by exercise of undue influence and compulsion, it would be a travesty of justice to permit the Investigating Agency to continue with the investigation into the alleged offence. Since the very substratum of the allegations on which the second respondent has initiated criminal action, has been found to be dubious and suspicious, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners based on the said allegations would be a sheer abuse of the process of court. Moreover, the minor child of the second respondent herself having narrated the circumstances in which the said letters have come into existence, it would not be expedient to permit the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 350/2014 being an abuse of the process of the court deserve to be nipped in the bud. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 350/2014 pending before the Halasuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru City and the consequent investigation thereon is hereby quashed. I.A. No. 2/2015, I.A. No. 3/2015, I.A. No. 3/2016, I.A. No. 2/2018 and I.A. No. 3/2018 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are dismissed as do not survive for consideration.