JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the HCGP for respondent No.1. The respondent No.2, in spite of service of notice, did not choose to appear. 2. Though this matter is listed for admission, as the matter is heard on merits, taken up for final disposal. 3. The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that, in the complaint given by respondent No.2, he has mentioned the timing of assault said to have taken place on 10.30 a.m. and at that time this petitioner was in the hospital and the respondent No.2 in his complaint claims to have been assaulted with an iron road. The nature of injuries said to have been suffered by him belie this and the very fact that while a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 initially against four persons, he having retracted most of the contents of the complaint, during the investigation none was arrested and the charge sheet was filed against only this petitioner which shows that the FIR was registered only at the insistence of respondent No.2 and that there was no truth in the same and even otherwise the complaint and subsequent proceedings are abuse of the process of law and hence ought to have been held as such and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments vehemently contend that this complaint is to suit up the complaint given by this petitioner which was registered on the same day at 6.30 p.m. for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 326, 447, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and on the same day the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against this petitioner and both the complaints have been investigated and the police have filed the charge sheet in respect of Crime Nos.135/2015 and 136/2015 and after filing the charge sheet the same are numbered as C.C.No.1825/2015 and C.C.No. 1921/2015 and the Court below has taken cognizance in respect of both the cases. He further contends that it is nothing but a counter blast as against the complaint of this petitioner and it amounts to abuse of process of law and hence this Court has to invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceedings. 5. He further contends that it is nothing but a counter blast as against the complaint of this petitioner and it amounts to abuse of process of law and hence this Court has to invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceedings. 5. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the timing mentioned in the complaint filed by 2nd respondent is 10.30 a.m. and at that time this petitioner was in the hospital, in terms of the wound certificate issued by the concerned hospital and hence it is a clear case of false case has been registered against this petitioner. 6. Per contra, the HCGP in his argument contends that the alleged incident date by both the complainants is dated 15.9.2015 and in one complaint the timing is mentioned as 8.00 a.m. and in the other complaint the timing is mentioned as 10.30 a.m. and only discrepancy is with regard to timing and the wound certificate issued in respect of this petitioner is by Dr. Bashirahmed, Nimra Hospital, Gokak and the wound certificate in respect of the other complainant is issued by the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gokak and both of them have sustained the injuries and with regard to the discrepancy of timing is concerned, the same has to be ascertained only during the course of trial and based on the discrepancy of timing, this Court cannot exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 7. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and also the HCGP for respondent No.1, the question arises before this Court is, whether this Court can invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceedings. 8. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case that the incident was taken on 15.9.2015 and both in the FIR and complaint the date is mentioned as 15.9.2015. 8. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case that the incident was taken on 15.9.2015 and both in the FIR and complaint the date is mentioned as 15.9.2015. Only timing is mentioned in respect of complaint of this petitioner is 8.00 a.m. and in respect of the complaint of 2nd respondent timing is mentioned as 10.30 a.m. The wound certificate which is produced along with this petition in respect of this petitioner the timing with regard to the treatment is mentioned as 9.40 a.m. and incident of assault at 8.00 a.m. on 15.9.2015 and in the wound certificate in respect of respondent No.2 the timing of incident is mentioned as 10.30 a.m. and he went to the hospital at around 1.15 p.m. on 15.9.2015 and there are wound certificates in respect of both the complainants. 9. As rightly pointed out by the HCGP that the discrepancy of timing in respect of the incident cannot be decided in the proceedings initiated under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 On perusal of the wound certificates of both the complainants, there are injuries and hence this Court is of the opinion that this Court cannot invoke the proviso of section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceedings initiated against this petitioner and this matter has to be tried and the truth has to be ascertained only during trial insofar as the wound certificates, which are produced along with the petition and with regard to the discrepancy also. Only after holding the trial, the trial Court can come to the conclusion as to whether the incident was taken place or not and this Court by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot decide the same. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.