JUDGMENT H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant who is the wife of accused No.1 has filed a complaint before the police that her marriage was solemnized with her husband and out of the said wedlock there are two children. Her husband is having illicit relationship with one Lata Banakar who is the wife of Shekhar Banakar and at the instance of said Lata, she is subjected to mental and physical harassment including her children, inspite of the advice made by the elders to her husband he continued the same. In order to protect the interest of her children she has tolerated the harassment meted out to her and she met and advised the said Lata Banakar, and she abused her in a filthy language and caused life threat. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 25/10/2017 at around 2.00a.m., her husband brought the said lady and when she questioned her husband, he replied that she will stay in the very same house and if she is having interest, she has to continue or to leave the house. Again on 22/10/2017, her husband came and made galata and this petitioner assaulted her and snatched the chain from the neck and caused the life threat. That on 15/11/2017, at about 7.30 p.m., when she was advising her daughter, again this petitioner came and quarreled with her and assaulted her and snatched her Mangalsutra and when she is screamed at the spot, the neighbourers came to the spot and the petitioner also abused the neighbourers and hence she has lodged a complaint. 3. Based on the complaint, police have registered a case against the petitioner and also the husband of respondent No.2. The police have also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after investigation, filed the charge sheet. The Court below taken cognizance against both the accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner, who is the accused No.2 has invoked section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the very issuance of process against her. 4. The police have also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after investigation, filed the charge sheet. The Court below taken cognizance against both the accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner, who is the accused No.2 has invoked section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the very issuance of process against her. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the very taking of cognizance against the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and further contended that a false complaint against the petitioner is filed after lapse of four days and that itself is sufficient to hold that it is totally a created story to implicate the petitioner and this petitioner is no way connected to the husband of respondent No.2 and the petitioner is a married woman and she has got a child and hence question of illicit relationship with accused No.1 does not arise. It is further contended that it is the quarrel between the respondent No.2 and her husband and there is no overtact against the petitioner, unnecessarily the petitioner has been implicated by creating a story. The very contention of the petitioner that she is the resident of Rattihalli, whereas the respondent No.2 and her husband are residing at Ranebennur and moreover there are no ingredients of alleged offences against the petitioner and it is a clear cut case of concoction and abuse of process and hence it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. The other contention of the petitioner is that, the Magistrate while exercising the powers noted that papers are perused and as per the list found to be correct; FIR and complaint are enclosed herewith; the postmortem report regarding death of the accused is enclosed and in spite of that the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons and hence the very initiation of proceedings is liable to be quashed since the Magistrate has not applied mind and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his argument reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and also contends that there are no any materials against this petitioner and there is no overtact allegation against the petitioner also and the petition is liable to be quashed. 6. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his argument reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and also contends that there are no any materials against this petitioner and there is no overtact allegation against the petitioner also and the petition is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the HCGP in his arguments he contends that, the accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with this petitioner and specific allegation is made in the complaint with regard to the illicit relationship and also in the complaint categorically narrated with regard to the incident taken place on different dates and the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The Magistrate having considered the contents of the complaint as well as the investigation material, issued process and it appears, there was a typographical error committed with regard to referring of filing of postmortem report. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent and on perusal of the material on record, this Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is no way concerned to the alleged crime and there was a dispute between the husband and wife and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The Magistrate also did not apply his mind while issuing process. It is rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that the Magistrate while issuing process, he has mentioned that papers are perused, as per the list found to be correct, FIR and complaint are enclosed; the postmortem report regarding death of the accused is also enclosed. 9. While passing the order, in the operative portion, it is mentioned that, perused the materials on record, cognizance is taken for the offence alleged against the accused persons and ordered to issue process against accused Nos.1 and 2. No doubt in the order sheet it is mentioned as postmortem report is filed regarding death of the accused, however process is issued. On perusal of the material which is placed before the Court, FIR was registered based on the complaint and thereafter investigation is completed by recording the statements of witnesses. 10. No doubt in the order sheet it is mentioned as postmortem report is filed regarding death of the accused, however process is issued. On perusal of the material which is placed before the Court, FIR was registered based on the complaint and thereafter investigation is completed by recording the statements of witnesses. 10. It appears, the Magistrate, while passing the order also referred to the postmortem report and there are no documents of postmortem report along with the charge sheet materials. When once it appears typographical error has been committed as contended by the HCGP, mere mentioning the postmortem report in the order sheet does not itself vitiate the proceedings as contended by the petitioner's counsel. On perusal of the operative portion of the order, it is specifically mentioned that he has perused the material on record and cognizance is taken for the offences. On perusal of the complaint averments also, in paragraphs No.3 and 5 of the complaint a specific allegation is made against this petitioner and also it is specific that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant and made galata on different accession, when such being the circumstances, and when a specific allegation is made and statement of witnesses has been recorded, the matter is required to go for trial. 11. The other contention of the petitioner that there is no overtact against the petitioner cannot be accepted and in the complaint it is mentioned that the petitioner has assaulted the complainant with her hands. The other contention that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind also cannot be accepted and having taken note of the complaint averments and the statements of witnesses, it is a fit case to go for trial. There are no grounds to exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. While exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court also must be careful and see that section 482 of Cr.P.C. is only an exception and not a rule and only in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice and causing injustice, the same has to be exercised. This court do not find any such circumstances by looking into the material on record. 12. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.