JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the HCGP for respondent. 2. The petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., sought an order to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the of fence punishable under sections 120B, 302 read with section 149 of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that one Niranjan S/o.Gajendra Pujar has lodged a complaint stating that he has received the message on his phone from Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, that the dead body of his father Gajendra was found near Tapovan, Dharwad. Accordingly the complainant and his uncle went to the spot and identif ied the dead body of his father and thereafter went to the police station and lodged the complaint alleging that his father was working as Head Master in Kuruvinakoppa Government High School and he used to travel from Dharwad to Kalaghatagi, some unknown miscreants committed the murder of his father by strangulation and the police after receiving the complaint have conducted the investigation and came to know that the accused No.1 and the petitioner who are brother and sister of the complainant and children of the deceased hatched a conspiracy with accused No.5 and engaged accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the supari killers, to commit the murder of Gajendra and accordingly accused No.5 obtained an amount of Rs.10,000/- from accused No.4 as advance amount and it was agreed to execute the murder of the deceased for Rs.80,000/- and the accused Nos.2 and 3 executed the work entrusted to them to commit the murder and threw the dead body of the deceased and after completion of the investigation, this petitioner is absconding and a split up charge sheet has been filed and a case is registered in C.C.No.783/2011. 4. 4. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that there is no any motive and motive attracted against the petitioner is that the deceased was having illicit relationship with one Gangamma since 12 years, neglecting his wife, and spending the entire salary to the said Gangamma and hence, the accused Nos.1, who is the son of deceased and the petitioner, who is accused No.4 daughter of the deceased were angry with the deceased and hence, they conspired to eliminate their father and hence gave supari for killing and that the very allegation is baseless and there are no material collected against the petitioner and the trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 302 read with section 149 of IPC and no purpose will be served in proceeding against the petitioner in view of acquittal of the other accused persons. 5. In support of his contention, the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Ilias vs. State of Karnataka, which is an unreported judgment rendered on 9.4.2001, and in the similar set of situation, this Court has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings for the of fence punishable under sections 498A and 302 read with section 34 of IPC. 6. The counsel also relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court, in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police reported in, (2006) 1 KerLT 552 (FB) and contends that referring the two judgments of the Kerala High court, the Full Bench in its judgment held that no purpose will be served in proceeding against the accused and referred the matter to the single Judge with regard to exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Based on these citations, the counsel contends that the facts and circumstances of the case on hand also very similar and hence, this Court has to exercise powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra, the HCGP in his arguments contends that the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Umesh vs. State of Kerala reported in, (2017) 3 SCC 112 held that it is for the Magistrate to consider the contentions regarding discharge and upholding the judgment of the Kerala High Court further held that, all contentions taken by the accused are taken on their face value also, it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider those contentions in an appropriate application filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and hence directed the accused to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate where criminal case is pending and follow the proper procedure for taking the bail and file application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate was directed to consider any such application filed, in accordance with law. 8. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the HCGP, the point that arises for consideration of this Court is whether this Court can exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the case on hand as contended by the petitioner. 9. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case, it is a case that this petitioner and accused No.1 mainly, who are son and daughter of the deceased. The allegation is made that both of them have conspired to eliminate their father, who was having illicit relationship with one Smt.Gangamma, since the deceased father was spending the entire salary to that lady and hence they conspired and gave supari for killing to other accused persons fixing the amount of Rs.80,000/- and at the first instance case was initiated against unknown persons and after investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The other accused persons have been acquitted after conducting trial on the ground that there are no material to come to a conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 120B, 302 read with section 149 of IPC. 10. The other accused persons have been acquitted after conducting trial on the ground that there are no material to come to a conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 120B, 302 read with section 149 of IPC. 10. The petitioner's counsel relying upon the above judgments contends that similar set of facts were considered by this Court and also the Kerala High Court Full Bench and the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are exercised by this Court and the Kerala High Court Full Bench directed the single Judge to exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., in accordance with law. 11. The HCGP, in his arguments, he contended vehemently that remedy is available to the petitioner before the concerned Court by invoking section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and this Court cannot exercise the power of 482 of Cr.P.C. and hence the relief cannot be granted under the factual aspects of the case on hand. No doubt this Court in the earlier judgment, which is unreported, exercised the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that no purpose will be served in proceeding against the accused, since no material was placed before the Court against the other accused persons and also the Full Bench of Kerala High Court referred the matter to the concerned single Judge to exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and those judgments are old judgments and recently the Supreme Court in 2017 categorically held that those contentions can be raised before the concerned Court by making an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and further upheld the judgment of the Kerala High Court, dismissing the petition for quashing and further directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court and file an appropriate application for bail as well as to discharge and further direction was given that if such an application is filed, to consider the said application, in accordance with law. 12. 12. For having taken note of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, and in paragraph No.3 of the judgment the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court in rejecting the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and further observed that if at all any contentions are taken, the same can be urged before the Magistrate and hence, this Court is of the opinion that the very judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and hence the contention of the petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted by invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is having a liberty to approach the concerned Court surrendering herself before the Court by making an appropriate application to seek the remedy for bail and for discharge. 13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court to seek appropriate relief surrendering herself before the Court below and if bail application and any discharge application are filed, the concerned Court is directed to consider such applications, in accordance with law. If any bail application is filed, the Court below is directed to consider the same in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, which has been referred above.