ORDER : Heard the arguments of petitioner’s counsel and the HCGP for respondent State. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.09.2012, there was a procession for immersion of Lord Ganesh idol and the police officials who were on duty, instructed to go in other street, advising them that there are chances of communal clashes if they proceed in that way. At that time the accused persons did not heed to the advise and also abused them in a filthy language and caused threat to the life and prevented the complainant and others in discharging their duties of public servant and this petitioner and others have pelted stones against the public servants and hence a complaint was given by the Police Sub-Inspector, Rattihalli. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of P.D.P.P. Act. 3. This petitioner, who is accused No.9 in his petition he contends that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He hails from respectable family and having good reputation in the society and he is a practicing advocate, resident of Rattihalli town and he is always defending his clients against the crimes registered by the Rattihalli police. As such, the respondent-police have falsely implicated the petitioner by slapping false and fictitious charges against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the charge sheet has been filed only against 46 persons out of the said 1,500 persons who gathered in the procession of immersion of Lord Ganesha is highly unbelievable and it is highly impossible to believe the overt acts mentioned by the respondent police and all the eyewitnesses and other witnesses are police staff except CWs.2 and 3, who are the pancha witnesses and hence this petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the charge sheet and hence it is nothing but an abuse of process implicating the petitioner as one of the accused and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings. 4. 4. The petitioner’s counsel in his argument also he reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that only the material against the petitioner is the statement of CW.9 and further contended that CW.33, who is the I.O. himself injured and cannot investigate the matter and file the charge sheet and hence on these two grounds the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner has to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument, he contends that the complainant is the PSI of Rattihalli and in the complaint itself the name of this petitioner is mentioned and apart from hat he also submits that this petitioner was apprehended in the spot itself and there are sufficient material to believe that this petitioner also indulged in committing the crime. Apart from that the statement of witnesses also recorded and when such being the material on record, the question of false implication does not arise and he was at the spot and he was apprehended at the spot itself and hence no grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Having considered the contention of the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP and also on perusal of the complaint as well as the charge sheet material, it is not in dispute that this petitioner has been apprehended at the spot and also the counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that in the complaint itself the name of this petitioner is mentioned, though it is a mob fury and there were 1,500 persons as contended by the petitioner’s counsel and it is specifically mentioned that 46 accused persons are arrayed in the case. Having taken note of prima facie material and in the complaint itself the name of this petitioner appeared and also he was arrested at the spot, the question of false implication does not arise at all to quash the proceedings. Whether he pelted the stone or not all these questions has to be tested in trial and not in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court has to take note of the prima facie material and cannot conduct a mini trial whether he was indulged in pelting the stone and causing destruction of public properties and hence the contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. 7. 7. The other contention that CW.33 himself has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and with regard to this aspect, the counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2018 AIAR (Criminal) 1065 in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and no doubt in this judgment the Apex Court also held that the complainant cannot be an investigator. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court recently delivered in Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) and in this judgment the Apex Court also discussed the case which has been cited by the petitioner’s counsel in Mohan Lal’s case and in this subsequent judgment the Apex Court held that the Mohan Lal’s case may require consideration by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges and therefore directed the registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench. In the present case on hand, CW.33 is not the complainant and investigator and no doubt he is one of the victim of the incident and he also sustained injury in the mob fury and that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and I have already pointed out that the petitioner was taken to custody at the spot when the alleged incident was taken place and apart from that the name of this petitioner is figured in the complaint itself and it clearly shows that prima facie material against the petitioner and hence the question of invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise and I do not find any material to come to the conclusion that same is nothing but an abuse of process and miscarriage of justice and in the absence of an abuse of process, it is not appropriate to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above discussions this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.