ORDER : Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal, having taken note of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD., AND ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039 , whereunder, Hon’ble Apex Court, has held that steps should be taken to dispose of such cases, where proceedings before Trial Court has been stayed. In the instant case, records would disclose that further proceedings before Trial Court has been stayed by order dated 01.03.2017 and it is in operation till date. 2. In these proceedings petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 10 in C.C.No.24057/2016 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, have sought for quashing of the order dated 07.10.2016 and to accept ‘B’ report by dismissing the complaint filed by respondent. 3. Petitioners are directors of a Cooperative Society namely Ministry of Communications Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (for short ‘society’) and they have formed a layout known as Sahakaranagar layout on the Bellary road, after lands measuring 199 acres came to be acquired by the appropriate Government and possession of which came to be handed over to the society. The planning authority namely Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA is said to have approved layout plan and released sites in the year 1992 in favour of society, pursuant to which allotment of sites have also been made by the society in favour of its members. 4. It is the grievance of the complainant that he retired as a Head Master from Government school and his son Mr. M.Prashanth was allotted a site bearing No.1820/12 by the society for which allotment charges were paid and subsequently, sale deed came to be registered on 03.02.2000. It is also alleged by the complainant that his son has constructed a three storied building in the site by borrowing loan and officials of Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA during the year 2008, came near their house and fenced the house built on the said site, on the ground that it is an area earmarked for park. It is also alleged by the complainant that his son has constructed a three storied building in the site by borrowing loan and officials of Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA during the year 2008, came near their house and fenced the house built on the said site, on the ground that it is an area earmarked for park. It is the grievance of the complainant that petitioners who are the directors of society had fabricated the documents, cheated, misrepresented and had executed the sale deed and after procuring documents from society, he came to know that there was no such site in existence and as such, he had taken several steps by initiating different proceedings before appropriate forum including filing of the complaint in question. Infact, complainant has alleged that he had also challenged various acts of society and he has further alleged in his complaint that on 01.06.2009, about 7 to 8 persons came in a Innova Car and threatened him to withdraw the cases filed against petitioners and when he approached jurisdictional police they refused to register the complaint. As such, a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., came to be filed against petitioners. 5. The record on hand would disclose that the said complaint was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the Jurisdictional Police for investigation, upon which ‘B’ report came to be filed. Same was objected to by the complainant by getting himself examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. It is in this background, learned Magistrate by order dated 07.10.2016 rejected the ‘B’ report and has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC. Hence, challenging the order of taking cognizance, rejection of ‘B” report and issuance of process to petitioners, they are before this Court. 6. I have heard arguments of Sri Shashidhara, H.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Ramesh Kumar V. learned counsel appearing for Sri P.M.Narayanaswamy, for respondent. Perused the records. 7. Petitioners being directors of the Cooperative society have produced the certified copy of modified approved plan issued by Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA. A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that purported site bearing No.1820/12 is found in the approved plan. Thus, first contention or the ground urged in the complaint is bereft of truth. Perused the records. 7. Petitioners being directors of the Cooperative society have produced the certified copy of modified approved plan issued by Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA. A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that purported site bearing No.1820/12 is found in the approved plan. Thus, first contention or the ground urged in the complaint is bereft of truth. It is because of this reason jurisdictional police during the investigation had found that there is no truth in the allegation made in the complaint. 8. Though, Sri Ramesh Kumar V, learned counsel appearing for complainant/respondent relies on the communication dated 30.06.2011 issued by the Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA, which is an endorsement issued to the complainant and perusal of the same would disclose that there is no reference to site bearing No.1820/12 in the site numbers mentioned therein. However, said endorsement is prior to issuance of modified plan which is of the year 2012. As such, second contention of complainant also falls to the ground. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAJIV THAPAR AND OTHERS Vs. MADANLAL KAPOOR, reported in AIR (2013) 3 SCC 330 , has held that while examining the plea for quashing of the proceedings at the stage of issuance of process or at the stage of committal or at the stage of framing of charges that is to say before commencement of actual trial, following steps are to be followed, viz; “30.1. Step One: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. It is in this background, facts narrated herein above when examined it would clearly indicate that purported site which is allotted to respondent bearing No.1820/12 finds a place in the modified approved plan issued by Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA. It is in this background, facts narrated herein above when examined it would clearly indicate that purported site which is allotted to respondent bearing No.1820/12 finds a place in the modified approved plan issued by Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA. Infact, the very same complainant had filed a writ petition No.18522/2007 challenging the resolution dated 22.12.2006 passed by Bengaluru Development Authority/BDA, whereunder, BDA has resolved to grant approval to the modified layout plan formed by the society and said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure-K) and affirmed in Writ Appeal No.2904/2009 on 10.11.2009 (Annexure-L), which matter came to be carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court did not yield results and special leave petition came to be dismissed on 22.02.2010 (Annexure-M). Thus, it would emerge from the above facts that site in question which was allotted in favour of complainant’s son, a residential building has been constructed in the said site and he is said to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, material relied upon by accused/petitioners would belie the charges leveled against accused in the complaint and said material is sufficient to reject the factual assertions raised in the complaint. Said available material would persuade this Court to accept the plea raised by petitioners. As noticed herein above, investigating authorities had filed ‘B’ report after concluding investigation and found that there is no material whatsoever to proceed against the accused persons namely petitioners. 11. Sri Ramesh Kumar V, learned counsel appearing for respondent heavily relied upon depositions of PWs.2 and 3 to buttress his argument with regard to alleged threat posed by petitioners to the complainant. A perusal of statements made by Sri SrinivasamurthyPW.2 and Sri Ramamurthy PW.3 would indicate that they have made omnibus statement namely some 7 to 8 persons had threatened the complainant. It is in this background, investigating authority after having examined the material found that petitioners at no point of time had made any such threats. This finding recorded in ‘B’ report has not been considered, examined, adjudicated and referred to by the learned Magistrate before rejecting ‘B’ report and issuing process to the accused persons. 12. It is in this background, investigating authority after having examined the material found that petitioners at no point of time had made any such threats. This finding recorded in ‘B’ report has not been considered, examined, adjudicated and referred to by the learned Magistrate before rejecting ‘B’ report and issuing process to the accused persons. 12. In that view of the matter, issuance of process as well as rejection of ‘B’ report being erroneous, continuation of proceedings against petitioners would definitely amount to abuse of process of law and it would not serve any fruitful purpose in continuing the proceedings against petitioners. 13. Hence, the following: ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. Order dated 07.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.24057/2016 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.24057/2016 are hereby quashed and they are acquitted of the offences alleged.