JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the complaint dated 27.11.2017 and he has also prayed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1289/2018 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Court, Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 3. The gist of the case is that, the petitioner-accused belongs to Beda Jangama Caste which comes within the category of Schedule Caste. The petitioner-accused requested the Tahashildar, Ranebennur to issue him the Schedule Caste Certificate. The learned Tahashildar by his order dated 17.06.2016, without any enquiry informed the petitioner that he cannot be issued with the said certificate and he passed an order even though the report of Revenue Inspector indicates that the petitioner belongs to the Beda Jangama Caste. The petitioner-accused filed an appeal against the order of the Tahashildar to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 21.09.2017 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahashildar to hold an enquiry in respect of the claim of the petitioner after issuing notice to him. 4. It is the further case of the complainant that the date so fixed for hearing on 16.10.2017, the petitioner-accused appeared before the Tahashildar and submitted his written statement. On the contrary, the Tahashildar directed the petitioner to produce the documents in support of his claim and he adjourned the case to 30.10.2017. The petitioner made an endorsement that he has no documents and requested to pass the order in accordance with law. Since the Presiding Officer was on other duty, hearing of the case was adjourned from 30.10.2017 to 04.11.2017, on which date the Tahashildar has passed the order. It is further stated that the petitioner-accused has preferred the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri. It is further alleged that, the notice of the hearing was dispatched to the address of the petitioner on 13.12.2017 and it was reached to him on 14.12.2017 and the order dated 14.12.2017 was passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner-accused has preferred the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri. It is further alleged that, the notice of the hearing was dispatched to the address of the petitioner on 13.12.2017 and it was reached to him on 14.12.2017 and the order dated 14.12.2017 was passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is further stated that, a complaint was registered by the complainant on 27.11.2017 stating that when he was working and discharging the official duty on 16.10.2017 the accused: petitioner has obstructed in discharging the official duty and he also insulted the said Tahashildar while passing the orders. It is also further stated by the complainant that on 18.11.2017 a false paper publication has been made in Vijaya Vani Daily News Paper that in order to issue the certificate he has demanded Rs. 25,000/- and the same was published on 19.11.2017. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in this behalf. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the petitioner- accused has filed a complaint before the Lokayukta against the Tahashildar. As a counter blast the present complainant has registered the case belatedly on 27.11.2017. It is his further submission that the learned Tahashildar while passing the order on 16.10.2017 was discharging quasi judicial functions and if any such incident has taken place then under such circumstances he ought to have entered the same in the order sheet. The order sheet which has been produced before this court, clearly goes to show that no such incident has taken place. It is his further submission that when the judicial duties are going to be discharged and if anything is recording in the proceedings and the other material is there in the order sheet that it is going to throw light in the said recording is acceptable and it cannot be taken back. In order to substantiate his such arguments, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited, (2002) 12 Law Suit (SC) 93. It is his further submission that only with an intention to harass the petitioner-accused the said complaint has been filed. It is further submitted that, the complaint filed against the petitioner-accused and the proceedings initiated are nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that only with an intention to harass the petitioner-accused the said complaint has been filed. It is further submitted that, the complaint filed against the petitioner-accused and the proceedings initiated are nothing but abuse of process of law. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. It is his further submission that he is only restricting his prayer to the quashing of the complaint and not the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 1289/2018 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Court, Ranebennur. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that already the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that, CWs. 4 to 7 are official witnesses, they have categorically stated about the overt acts committed by the accused-petitioner. He further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the statement of witnesses corroborates and only because the accused- petitioner has not produced any documents and the case was adjourned and at that time the accused-petitioner has obstructed for discharging the official duty. It is his further submission that the accused-petitioner only with an intention to avoid trial has filed the present petition. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has restricted his prayer only insofar as quashing of the complaint dated 27.11.2017. In that light, the petition is going to be considered only for a limited purpose. Whether there is any material to quash the complaint filed by the complainant dated 27.11.2018? It is well settled proposition of law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 that what are the steps to be adopted while considering the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed. It is observed in the said decision that the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code are having very wide and while exercising the power more caution has to be exercised in invoking the said power. The prayer of quashing of the criminal proceedings, should be exercised very cautiously. It is observed in the said decision that the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code are having very wide and while exercising the power more caution has to be exercised in invoking the said power. The prayer of quashing of the criminal proceedings, should be exercised very cautiously. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances let us consider whether the petitioner-accused has made out any case so as to quash the proceedings. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the alleged incident has taken place at the time when the proceedings were going on before the Tahashildar on 16.10.2017 and no such mention is there in the order passed by the Tahashildar on 16.10.2017. It is his submission that the Tahashildar is exercising quasi judicial power and if any such incident has taken place, then under such circumstances, the same would have been reflected in the order passed by the Tahashildar on 16.10.2017 but in the said order nothing mentioning of any such incident clearly goes to show that no such incident has taken place and only as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner-accused before the Lokayukta the present complaint has been filed. But as could be seen from the records already the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Merely because the said act of the accused-petitioner is not mentioned in the order sheet no inference or presumption can be drawn holding that no such incident has taken place. In that light the contention of the accused-petitioner is not acceptable and liable to be rejected. When already charge sheet has been filed full material is there before Court. There an appropriate application can be filed. It is well proposed principles of law laid down in the case of Umesh vs. State of Kerala, (2017) 3 SCC 112 , wherein it has been observed that whatever the contentions raised which requires the assessment of the factual and other material, then under such circumstances the Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code and the appropriate remedy will have to be sought only by filing an application under Section 227 or 239 of the Cr.P.C for discharge. When the statement of witness is available before the Court, then under such circumstances, I feel that this Court now cannot exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings. The accused-petitioner if at all he wants, he can raise all these contentions which he has raised before this Court and file an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate if case is pending at that stage and in the event of filing any such application, the Magistrate can consider all the aspects and dispose of the matter by taking into consideration all the above observations. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above said liberty.