JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. Heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP for the respondents-State. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 07.06.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. Police Officer-CW-1 of Laxmeshwara Police Station, Fakkiresh Mattannavara, Sannappa Kambali and some of their group were proceedings towards Dingaleshwara Mutt. At that time, Yamanappa Kadimani, Vijaya Basavannappa Kadimani, Nagaraja Gudageri of Ghantachor's community shouted that Dingaleshwara Swamy is indulging in politics and abused the swamy. The group of other community objected for the abuses by Ghantachors community persons and thereafter, the persons of each group came to know about it and persons of each group rushed to that place and rioting commenced between the persons of two groups, threw stones against each other groups, damaged pushcarts, petty shops, sheds and establishments of each group. The said report was sent through PC-1063/CW 47 to Laxmeshwara Police Station, which is about 25 kms away from Balehosur Police outpost and the case was registered in Crime No. 79/2015 by ASI, Laxmeshwara PS on 08.06.2015 at 3.00 a.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC against 53 persons and named 13 persons as injured, in the pro-forma FIR. Subsequently, on 8.6.2015 another crime was registered in Crime No. 81/2015 and one more case was registered based on the compliant on 10.06.2015 in Crime No. 82/2015. 3. This Court in Crl. Pet. No. 100994/2015 clubbed with Crl. Pet. No. 100877/2015, passed an order allowing the both petitions that registration of Crime Nos. 81/2015 and 82/2015 of Laxmeshwara Police Station are quashed, however, direction was given to the Investigation Officer to proceed with the investigation of Crime No. 79/2015 by treating the statement of the informant in Crime Nos. 81/2015 and 82/2015 as the statement recorded during the course of investigation in Crime No. 79/2015. Thereafter, Laxmeshwara PS has investigated the matter in Crime No. 79/2015 and filed charge sheet in CC No. 682/2016 and at the same time, Laxmeshwara PS filed charge sheet and the same has been registered in Spl. C. No. 3/2016 against some and complaints to higher ups in Police Department and registered Spl. C. No. 14/2016 on the file of the Spl. Court at Gadag. 4. The counsel for the petitioners in his petition contends that more number of witnesses have been examined. C. No. 3/2016 against some and complaints to higher ups in Police Department and registered Spl. C. No. 14/2016 on the file of the Spl. Court at Gadag. 4. The counsel for the petitioners in his petition contends that more number of witnesses have been examined. CW-2 and 3 are witnesses to Spot Mahazar dated 8.6.2015 in Crime No. 79/2015, CW-4 and 5 are the witnesses to Spot Mahazar dated 11.06.2015 in Crime No. 82/2015, CW-6 and 7 are the witnesses to the Seizure Mahazar dated 22.06.2015 seizing 4 clubs, allegedly at the instance of Accused Nos. 10, 26, 54 and 27 in Crime No. 82/2015. CW-8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are the alleged injured eye witnesses, who are named in the complaint filed by the CW1. CW-13 to 38 are the alleged eye-witnesses. Some of them have mentioned the names of A-31 and A-32 as instigators, allegedly shouted by other accused. Some of them are mentioned A-31, 32 and 33 as instigators, allegedly shouted by other accused. CW-39 to 45 are the victims, whose properties were allegedly damaged by group of Ghantachor persons. CW-46 to 51 are the police personnel, who have stated about rioting, pelting of stones, exchange of verbose, between two groups i.e. persons of other communities in one group and persons of Ghantachor community in other group. CW-52, 53 and 54 are the other official witnesses including the doctor. CW-55 is the Grama Panchayath Secretary. CW-56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 are the police personnel. 5. The main contention of the petitioners in this petition is that at the earliest point of time on 07.06.2015, when the case was registered by Laxmeshwara Police Station, the names of these persons were not found and accused No. 31 is a District and Sessions Judge at the relevant point of time and he was discharging his duty as a Judge in the Court on that day and on RTI query, document is also placed which discloses that Accused No.31 has not obtained any permission or any leave to leave the Headquarters on 6th, 7th and 8th of June 2015. Accused No. 32 is a Head Constable, who worked on election Bandobasta Duty at Gadag on the date of incident. True copies of Passport to him and SHO of Naragund PS are also produced. Accused No. 32 is a Head Constable, who worked on election Bandobasta Duty at Gadag on the date of incident. True copies of Passport to him and SHO of Naragund PS are also produced. Accused No. 33 is a practicing advocate at Hubballi and Gadag residing at Hubballi and his mobile call details supports that he was not at Balehosur at the time of alleged incident. Accused No. 34 is a practicing advocate at Laxmeshwara, who spoke to PSI, Laxmeshwara at 7.00 p.m. through his mobile number on the same day i.e. 07.06.2015 and call details discloses that the petitioners were not there at the time of the alleged incident and hence the petitioners are entitled for relief of quashing. 6. The other contention of the petitioners is that, as could be seen from the complaint of CW-8 dated 10.06.2015 in one breath he says that these petitioners were present and in the subsequent further statement only allegation is made that these petitioners instigated and the other accused have shouted that they are having the support of these petitioners and subsequently, the I.O. has recorded the statement of some of the charge sheet witnesses on 08.06.2015 and the same reveals that accused Nos. 31, 32 and 33 have instigated other accused persons and the same does not constitute the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC and Section 109 of IPC and there are no material to proceed against these petitioners and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against these petitioners. 7. The counsel in support of his contention, mainly brought to my notice that when the complaint was given on 08.06.2015 in connection with the incident dated 07.06.2015 there are no any allegation against these petitioners even with regard to the presence of these petitioners and also with regard to any instigation and also brought to my notice the order passed by this Court in other two petitions quashing of the registration of Crime Nos. 81/2015 and 82/2015 who directed the I.O. to investigate the matter recording the statements of witnesses and brought to my notice proviso of Sections 107 and 109 of IPC and contends that no ingredients are fulfilled by the prosecution to proceed against these petitioners and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 8. 81/2015 and 82/2015 who directed the I.O. to investigate the matter recording the statements of witnesses and brought to my notice proviso of Sections 107 and 109 of IPC and contends that no ingredients are fulfilled by the prosecution to proceed against these petitioners and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument contends that based on the statement of CW-8 at the first instance, case has been registered in Crime No. 82/2015 and later the very same charge sheet witness CW-8 gave the further statement and at the first instance he made a mention about the presence of these petitioners and in the subsequent statement an allegation of abetment is alleged against these petitioners and further the counsel brought to my notice the statement of CW-14, CW-15 and CW-37 and CW-38 and all these CW's have stated in their statement regarding subsequent version of CW-8. The prosecution has collected the material and filed the charge sheet against these petitioners and there are ample material against these petitioners and the same has to be tested in trial and hence this Court cannot exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 9. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I would like to make a mention at this stage itself, the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not a rule and the same can be exercised as an exception and the very object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also to be kept in mind while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to prevent abuse of process and also miscarriage of justice. In view of the very object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court has to examine whether any material to proceed against these petitioners or whether it amounts to abuse of process and amounts to miscarriage of justice. 11. In view of the very object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court has to examine whether any material to proceed against these petitioners or whether it amounts to abuse of process and amounts to miscarriage of justice. 11. On perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses at the first instance a case was registered by the PSI of Laxmeshwara with regard to the incident taken place on 07.06.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. and it is rightly brought to my notice that there was no any allegation against these petitioners at the first instance and the said PSI is none other than CW-1 in the charge sheet witness who went to the spot along with his staff i.e. CWs. 48, 49, 50 and 51 and a case was registered on 08.06.2015 at 3.00 a.m. and at the first instance there is no any mention about either the presence or involvement of these petitioners in the complaint. The records reveal that later on based on the statement of some of the witnesses Crime No. 81/2015 dated 08.06.2015 and Crime No. 82/2015 dated 10.06.2015 are registered and the same has been quashed by this Court and there is no dispute with regard to the fact of quashing of those two proceedings and those order are available along with this petition. 12. However, this Court has made it clear that, to record the statement of the witnesses and proceed with the case in Crime No. 79/2015 itself and based on the statement of some of the witnesses, the charge sheet has been filed and these petitioners were brought as accused Nos. 31 to 35. It has to be noted that I have already mentioned that at the first instance there was no mention either about the presence or the involvement of the petitioners and during the course of investigation that too particularly based on the statement of CW-8 a crime was registered in Crime No. 82/2015 and while registering the case, the allegation is that these petitioners were present at the time of the incident and subsequently further statement was recorded that they only abetted the offence and in the same line of further statement, the statement of CWs. 14, 15, 37 and 38 are recorded as contended by the learned HCGP. 14, 15, 37 and 38 are recorded as contended by the learned HCGP. It has to be noted that the very prosecution is doubtful with regard to the very presence of these petitioners at the first instance and also it appears that there was an improvement by recording the further statement of CW-8 and other witnesses CWs. 14, 15, 37 and 38 says that the accused persons abused the other persons saying that these persons supporting them and in that line of the statement further statement was recorded. 13. The petitioners' counsel also brought to my notice about the telephonic calls made by these petitioners as on the date of the incident and all these telephonic call details disclose that they were not present where the alleged incident was taken place and mere making of the statement during the course of the investigation in one breath that they were all present and in another breath they have instigated the persons who indulged in the alleged crime, these petitioners were brought as accused as accused Nos. 31 to 35. First of all, the very investigation appears to be proceeded on two fold, the first fold is that they were present and the second fold is that they have instigated the persons who committed the offence and these petitioners were booked by invoking Section 107 and for the penal provision of Section 109 of IPC. 14. Having considered the material on record and the statement of witnesses that too in one breath that they were present and in another breath that they have instigated the other persons and mere making of such an allegation cannot be proceeded against the petitioners and I have already pointed out that the very case of the prosecution is doubtful and proceeded in erroneous direction that too in a later stage while registering the crime Nos. 81/2015 and 82/2015 that they were present at the time of the incident and in another direction that they only instigated them and it is nothing but an abuse of process and it amounts to miscarriage of justice and also it has to be noted that the allegation made against these petitioners who are none other than the Government officials i.e. accused Nos. 31 and 32-District Judge and Police Constable and other accused persons appears to be the family members of the District Judge and it appears that only in order to robe the family members of the Judge the proceedings are continued that too invoking Sections 107 and 109 of IPC and though the learned HCGP contends that the statement of CWs. 14, 15, 37 and 38 are recorded that they instigated the other accused persons in order to commit the offence cannot be accepted for the reason that at the first instance no allegation either in respect of involvement or of any instigation and later part only the case of the prosecution is improved by recording further statement and hence I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against accused No. 31 to 35. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos. 31 to 35 are quashed in C.C. No. 682/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara.