ORDER : Though this matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application for vacating stay, the matter is heard on merits with the consent of both the parties since this matter is pending from 2016. 2. The petitioners in this petition by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.91/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 167 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(ix) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC and ST Act, 1989’). 3. The factual matrix of the case is that as per the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.18741/1996 dated 13.12.2013 directed the Under Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare Department, Bengaluru to fill up the posts in DIMHANS and accordingly notification was issued inviting the interested persons to walk in interview on 10.01.2014 for different posts in DIMHANS i.e. on 20.12.2013 and the petitioner No.1 as Director of DIMHANS submitted detailed reply to the Secretary, Karnataka State SC and ST Commission, Bengaluru on 16.09.2014 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichuru issued a show cause notice calling the petitioner No.1 to submit suitable reply along with the concerned documents to the application submitted by respondent No.2 on 23.12.2015 and that on 04.01.2016 petitioner No.2 on the capacity of Director of DIMHANS submitted reply along with related documents. Respondent No.2 herein on 03.07.2016 has filed a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 167 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(ix) of SC and ST Act, 1989 as against the present petitioners and the same has been registered in Crime No.91/2016 for the above said offences and hence, the present petitioners have filed this petition seeking the relief of quashing of initiation of proceedings against them. 4. The main grounds urged in the petition is that all the process of recruitment has taken place during the course of carrying out official duties and hence, they are not at all liable to be prosecuted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 without considering the said aspect, has blindly registered the crime and issued FIR which needs to be quashed. 4. The main grounds urged in the petition is that all the process of recruitment has taken place during the course of carrying out official duties and hence, they are not at all liable to be prosecuted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 without considering the said aspect, has blindly registered the crime and issued FIR which needs to be quashed. Respondent No.2 had already lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Market Yard Police Station, Raichuru during December-2015, based on which these petitioners have already submitted entire factual report along with the necessary documents, in spite of which the respondent No.2, suppressing facts had filed second impugned complaint which is not permissible in law. Respondent No.2 has filed second complaint by suppressing earlier complaint filed by him and enquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichuru. It is further contended that the entire selection process is made in a transparent manner and strictly in adherence to the rules and procedure which is under the supervision of Special Bench of this Court and also represented by two senior KAS officers. It is further contended that till today respondent No.2 has not challenged his non-selection in any Court of law, but on the contrary, he is filing such complaints one after another with sole intention to threaten the petitioners in order to make them to act according to his wish and will. Respondent No.2 has filed such complaints that too against the petitioner No.1, who is no more in the office and the petitioner No.2, who was not at all connected to the selection process as he was not the Director at the relevant period. Such filing of the complaint caused serious harassment and torture to both the petitioners. If the proceedings is continued it amounts to abuse of process. 5. The other contention that the respondent No.2 appeared for the interview on 10.01.2014 and selection process was completed on 05.02.2014 and this Court has accepted the selection list and hence, subsequent to 05.02.2014, there is no any cause for alleged commission of crime. The very registration of the case against these petitioners is bad in law. The ingredients of the offences are not disclosed in the complaint. The very registration of the case against these petitioners is bad in law. The ingredients of the offences are not disclosed in the complaint. The other contention that if the entire complaint averments are considered it does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police officer under Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the registration of the crime and continuing with the investigation is bad in law and hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, the respondent No.2/party-in-person in his argument he would submit that the matter is only at FIR stage and immediately after the registration of the FIR the petitioners have approached the Court and obtained stay and further contend that false information is given to this Court and the same is apparent on record and Social Welfare Office report also confirms that false information is furnished and hence, invoking of Section 167 of IPC is rightly invoked by the police and on account of the false information given by these petitioners, the right of this respondent is affected and it amounts to an injury to a particular member of the oppressive society and hence, there are sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the petitioners' counsel and the respondent No.2/party-in-person and on perusal of the records, the FIR is registered in Crime No.91/2016 based on the complaint at Annexure-B. The counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 also gave one complaint earlier i.e. to the PSI Market Yard Police Station, Raichuru. Based on the complaint, remarks are sought from these petitioners regarding the allegations made in the complaint and these petitioners have given the reply vide letter dated 04.01.2016 in favour of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichuru and also submitted the report to the Secretary, Karnataka State SC and ST Commission vide Annexure-F intimating that respondent No.2 did not possess the requisite qualification relating to the minimum number of publications, the selection committee could not deliberate on sending a recommendation to the Medical Council of India regarding the relaxation of the experience and further report was given that in the merit list it was clearly stated that respondent No.2 did not meet minimum requirement of MCI for the post in respect of experience and publications. In respect of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry is conducted and these petitioners have also submitted their reply and no action has been taken and as per Annexure-B dated 03.07.2016, a complaint was given and at this juncture, respondent No.2 submits that the concerned police have called him and hence, he gave the complaint in Kannada and the same is not the second complaint and case has been registered. 8. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court that the appointment process was conducted in view of the directions issued by this Court and this Court also accepted the appointment process and the same has not been challenged by respondent No.2 before any of the Court and the same has reached its finality. It is also the contention of the petitioners that no appointment is made in respect of the particular post which the respondent No.2 belongs to and the same is carried forward and in support of the contention also produced copy of the application of respondent No.2 and contends that regarding minimum requirement of column No.13 and 14(a) has not been complied and hence, his name was not considered. 9. It has to be noted that first of all respondent No.2 did not choose to question the selection process and the same has been reached its finality and the grievance of respondent No.2 that false information is furnished to this Court and as a result this Court accepted the said information given by the petitioners herein and the main grouse of the petitioners herein that the very sending of the information which is false amounts to an offence under Section 167 of IPC. This Court would like to read the penal provisions of Section 167, which reads as follows: “167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury.-Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as [such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 10. The main contention of respondent No.2 that false information is given to the selection committee and also to this Court and here in this case, it has to be noted that this Court has already pointed out that respondent No.2 has not challenged the very selection process and apart from that the post for which he applied for has not been filled up and the same has been carried forward and hence, the very question of causing injury to him cannot be accepted. The petitioners have contended that he has not complied the requisite requirements of column No.13 and 14(a) and hence, information is furnished and the report is submitted on factual aspects and when such being the circumstances, it cannot be contended that false information is furnished and hence, Section 167 of IPC cannot be invoked and other provision of special enactment also does not constitutes since the candidate is not selected for the said post and the same is carried forward. This Court in the writ petition proceedings vide order dated 05.02.2014 in W.P.No.18741/1996 accepted the selection process and when such being the case, when the selection process is made under the supervision of this Court and when the order has not been challenged by respondent No.2 i.e. the selection process and also the order of this Court, the very initiation of criminal proceedings against these petitioners that too against the Government officials alleging that they have given false information, it amounts to an abuse of process and if the proceedings is continued against the petitioners, it amounts to miscarriage of justice and hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the main matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and hence, the same are also disposed of.