ORDER : 1. The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the Investigating Officer of II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, to conduct fresh investigation in Crime No.40 of 2008 and to file a final report expeditiously without arresting the petitioner/A-1 and to follow the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.12346, 12360, 12363 of 2009 and also in Crl.P.Nos.6909, 6910 and 6911 of 2009. 2. During pendency of the Criminal Petition, I.A.No.1 of 2014 (Crl.P.M.P.No.2840 of 2014) came to be filed to receive the documents filed along with the affidavit and consider the affidavit as additional grounds to the application filed by the petitioner/A-1 in Crl.P.No.13422 of 2011 pending before this Court and consequently prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A-1 in Crime No.40 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Karimnagar. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.2008, at about 10.30 hours, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that “she is a resident of Srinagar Colony, Karimnagar and her husband Nallavelli Venkateswarlu, is working as Senior Assistant in the office of Flood Flow Circle No.II, LMD Colony. On 04.03.2008 at about 9.30 A.M., her husband went to the office and did not return home and when they enquired in the office, they came to know that on receiving a phone call at about 4.30 P.M., her husband left the office and when she tried to call him, his mobile phone was switched off. On the same day at about 4.55 P.M., her son received an S.M.S. to his mobile No.984861022 that her husband left to Nizamabad on urgent work and he would return home in the mid night. On 05.03.2008 at about 8.30 A.M., they received another phone call from her husband’s mobile phone No.9848433940 that he needs an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs and, therefore, asked to collect the said amount from the relatives and send through their son Santhosh Kumar to Hyderabad. Thereafter, his mobile phone was switched off, and their enquiries about her husband with the relatives and neighbours, became futile. On receipt of the said complaint a case in Crime No.40 of 2008 came to be registered under the head “Man Missing”. 4. Thereafter, his mobile phone was switched off, and their enquiries about her husband with the relatives and neighbours, became futile. On receipt of the said complaint a case in Crime No.40 of 2008 came to be registered under the head “Man Missing”. 4. On 10.12.2008 the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a second complaint stating that on 19.09.2008 a Press Meet was conducted at Basheerbagh Press club, Hyderabad and at about 7.00 P.M., her son Ajay Kumar went to the head office of TV-9 Channel, Hyderabad to give press notification and in this regard he approached one Gangadhar, who is the Crime Reporter, and briefed him about the facts of missing of his father Venkateshwarlu. On that the said Gangadhar made a call to the mobile phone No.9866463412 of the petitioner, and took an interview over phone. During the interview, the petitioner had deliberately spoken as “Nene Kidnap Chesanu, Em peekuntaro peekkondi”. Basing on the said complaint, Section of Law was altered from “Man Missing” to Section 363 of I.P.C. 5. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, filed a Memo before the leaned Magistrate stating that on 03.04.2009 at about 9.00 A.M., while conducting vehicle checking at District Court Chowrasta, Karimnagar, he apprehended four persons and on interrogation, they confessed the offence, in the presence of mediators, and revealed their names as Kotte Srinivas (A-2), Kota Srinivas @ Gaddi Srinu (A-3), Kommuri Govardhan Rao (A-4) and Eerapu Gopal Reddy (A-5) and also stated that in the first week of March, 2008, on the instructions of the petitioner/A-1, all of them met each other, took an Indica Car bearing No. AP 15 AC 5157, went to Algunur village and kidnapped one Nallavelli Venkateswarlu, employee in S.R.S.P., LMD Colony, R/o. Srinagar Colony, Karimnagar, took him to Khammam, Kallur, Hyderabad and Valigonda, outskirts of Nalgonda District, demanded him to give money and when he denied, they committed murder by giving sleeping tablets/pills mixing with water and strangulated him with a towel, robbed away one gold chain, mobile phone and net cash of Rs.30,000/- and threw the dead body in a pit having water. Basing on the said confessional statement, the Section of law was again altered from 363 of I.P.C. to Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 6. Basing on the said confessional statement, the Section of law was again altered from 363 of I.P.C. to Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 6. Heard Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Pitla Shailaja, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant and perused the record. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-1, apart from the oral submissions made before the Court, also filed written submissions stating that the Petitioner/A-1 is practicing as an Advocate in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and he is a resident of Gunjapadugu village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioner/A-1 being a law student during the years 1999 to 2002 used to help the victims in drafting petitions to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District with regard to the harassment made by the local police and he also used to lodge complaints before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, against the police brutality. The local police warned him number of times not to draft such petitions. However, the Petitioner/A-1 being a Social Activist continued to help innocent persons, who were harassed by the local police, and for this reason, the local police developed grudge against the petitioner and have started falsely implicating him in various crimes and on account of political rivalry also he is being harassed and from 1999 to 2009, Karimnagar Police foisted as many as 12 false cases against the petitioner indulging him in various offences including kidnapping, cheating etc., and most of the said cases were quashed by this Court and in three cases, where he faced trial, he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge holding that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said cases. It is also submitted that in the year 2008, the petitioner got filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad vide HRC No. 413 of 2008, through one T.Rama Devi, who was harassed by one Ganapath Jhadav, Circle Inspector of Police, by detaining her in the police station illegally and also assaulted her without any complaint whatsoever, due to which she had received severe injuries all over her body. Basing on the said complaint, the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, conducted a detailed enquiry by visiting Karimnagar town and found guilty of the said Ganapath Jhadav and other police personnel, for which, the said Ganapath Jhadav, Inspector of Police bore grudge against the petitioner and lodged a complaint against him before the I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar and the same was registered as Crime No. 35 of 2008 under Sections 153-A, 506 & 507 IPC alleging that a text message was received from the Mobile No.9705461454 in which the subscriber sent a threatening message that the Maoists, in protest against the arrest of their comrade Samba Shivudu, have decided to create violence by blasting District Court Buildings at Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam and that the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar would be responsible for the said cause. However, the police did not file any charge sheet against the petitioner/A-1 in the said case for a long time and the said crime was closed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in view of the Circular in ROC No. 274/SO/80 dated 9-7-1980 issued by the High Court of A.P. It is further submitted that due to severe harassment made by the said Ganapathi Jadav, C.I. of Police as well as other police personnel in Karimnagar Town, the petitioner again approached the Human Rights Commission and submitted a detailed representation, dated 8- 3-2008, which was numbered as H.R.C.No.774 of 2008 and also submitted a detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, dated 20.03.2008. However, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, did not take any steps on the said representation, dated 20-03-2008. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to approach the erstwhile High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad by filing W.P.No.11422 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by an order, dated 01-09-2008, directing the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 20-03-2008, in accordance with law. However, the said order was not implemented and till date the said representation of the petitioner was not yet disposed of. It is also submitted that after disposal of the said writ petition, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar without implementing the orders in W.P.No.11422 of 2008, all of a sudden, declared that the petitioner/A-1 is “most wanted”. However, the said order was not implemented and till date the said representation of the petitioner was not yet disposed of. It is also submitted that after disposal of the said writ petition, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar without implementing the orders in W.P.No.11422 of 2008, all of a sudden, declared that the petitioner/A-1 is “most wanted”. In the said circumstances, the petitioner/A-1 approached this Court by filing another W.P.No.23380 of 2008 seeking to declare the action of the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner/A-1 in any manner, but in the said W.P.No. 23380 of 2008, as the respondents failed to file any Counter, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by making the interim order as absolute. Despite the said order of this Court, the police did not stop their harassment towards the petitioner/A-1 and falsely implicated him in the present Crime No.40 of 2008 as well as in Crime No. 35 of 2008 and Crime No. 4 of 2009 of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, for which, the petitioner filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.12346, 12360 and 12363 of 2009 to declare the action of the police as illegal, arbitrary and to quash the proceedings in the said three crimes. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court on 24.07.2009 directing the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, to appoint another police officer to investigate into the above mentioned three crimes registered against the petitioner/A-1. Thereafter, the said Ganapathi Jadav, Circle Inspector of Police, was transferred and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar closed Crime No.35 of 2008, which was lodged by Ganapath Jadav, C.I. of Police. Therefore, he bore grudge against the petitioner/A-1 and falsely implicated him in the present crime. 8. Thereafter, the said Ganapathi Jadav, Circle Inspector of Police, was transferred and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar closed Crime No.35 of 2008, which was lodged by Ganapath Jadav, C.I. of Police. Therefore, he bore grudge against the petitioner/A-1 and falsely implicated him in the present crime. 8. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent lodged the second complaint on 10-12-2008 before the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, with a delay of 83 days from 19-09-2008 (Date of Press Meet), which clearly indicates the motive of the 1st and 2nd respondents to alter the Section of law from “Man Missing” to “Kidnaping” and to implicate the name of the petitioner/A-1 in this case, more particularly, the statement of one Gangadhar, Crime Reporter of TV9 was not recorded by the police, nor he was examined as a witness, though the name of the said Gangadhar was mentioned by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant herein in her second complaint. Thus, it is clear that the police in collusion with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant concocted the story of press meet and alleged phone call made to the petitioner/A-1 only for the purpose of altering the Section of law and even the police did not collect the call data and the conversation alleged to have been made on 19-09-2008 in the Head Office of TV9 channel. Thereupon, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station, filed a Memo, dated 10.12.2008 at 11:30 A.M., in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, stating that the Section of law was being altered to 363 I.P.C. and the date of endorsement given by the Court was corrected as 11.12.2008, which clearly establishes the manipulation made by the police in collusion with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. It is further submitted that as per the Memo, dated 02-04-2009, the S.I. of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station categorically stated that he apprehended A-2 to A-5 on 03.04.2009 at 9 A.M. It is to be noted that when the S.I. of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station apprehended A-2 to A-5 on 03.04.2009, how the said fact was mentioned in the Memo, dated 02-04-2009 filed before the Court, which is practically impossible. Thus, it is crystal clear that the police concocted a false story only to make false allegations against the petitioner/A-1 and to implicate him in the case. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 have to be quashed on this ground alone. 9. It is also submitted that on the basis of alleged confession of A-2 to A-5, the police seized the towel, which was used to strangulate the deceased, on 18.04.2009, i.e. after a period of one year from the date of the alleged offence. Further the police recovered the third party vehicle, which was used in the alleged commission of offence, on 19.04.2009, however, the owner of the said vehicle was not examined by the police. 10. It is also submitted that, on 06.03.2008, one Velaga Narasimha Reddy, VRO of Nagaram Village, Hamlet of Kuntlagudem, Choutuppal Mandal, gave a compliant to the S.H.O., Valiigonda Police Station, stating that at 07:30 A.M., one Bona Muthyalu informed him that a dead body of an unknown male person was found in a water pit near his tank and on that he went and saw the dead body of male person aged about 58 years near the water pit situated near the road culvert between Nagaram and Kammagudem and that he requested the Police to take necessary action. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station, dated 06.03.2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that in Crime No. 40 of 2008, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stated in her complaint that her deceased husband was wearing Coffee Colour Pant, Saffron color (Kanakambaram colour) shirt on the date of alleged offence. In this regard, it is submitted that the clothes worn by the unknown male person in Crime No. 18 of 2008 and the clothes worn by the deceased in Crime No. 40 of 2008 are entirely different and do not match with each other. In this regard, it is submitted that the clothes worn by the unknown male person in Crime No. 18 of 2008 and the clothes worn by the deceased in Crime No. 40 of 2008 are entirely different and do not match with each other. Apart from that, as per the Post Mortem Report, dated 06.03.2008, no external injuries were found on the Neck, Pharynx and thyroid of the un-identified body and that no abnormality was detected in the Brain, Mouth, Teeth, Blood Vessels, Cavity, Trachea & Bronchi, and further part of Small Intestine, Liver and Gall Bladder and one kidney of the unidentified dead body in Crime No.18 of 2008 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report and that the Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report, dated 15.05.2008 stating that no poisonous substance was found in the unidentified dead body and observed that it was ‘natural death’. It is also submitted that the Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station, with an oblique motive and ill intention to implicate the petitioner/A-1, in the crime, deliberately merged the subject Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimanagar II Town Police Station with Crime No. 18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station, Nalgonda District, though both the crimes are not at all related. 12. It is also submitted that the petitioner/A-1 has no acquaintance with the deceased Nallavelli Venkateshwarlu. Though, after lapse of one year, it is alleged by the Police that the petitioner/A-1 made calls to the said Venkateshwarlu, call data relating to the Cell Number of Venkateshwarlu has not been appended to the Charge Sheet and if really the petitioner/A-1 made calls to the said Venkateshwarlu as alleged, the same would have been found place in the call data. 13. It is also submitted that the contents of the second complaint and the modified F.I.R., dated 10.12.2008 are inherently improbable and on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioner/A-1. Hence, there is no basis for implicating the petitioner as A-1 in Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station. 14. It is also submitted that A-3 confessed that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. AP 15 AC 5157, which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, belonged to one Mr. Hence, there is no basis for implicating the petitioner as A-1 in Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station. 14. It is also submitted that A-3 confessed that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. AP 15 AC 5157, which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, belonged to one Mr. Chary, who sold it to one Vishnuvardhan Rao, whereas, one K.Sarojana filed Crl.M.P.No.479 of 2009 in Cr.No.40 of 2008 stating that she is the registered owner of the car and has never let out the vehicle to others on rent much less to the accused. The vehicle was released by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar vide an order dated 11.05.2009 to K.Sarojana. Further, the statements of said Chary, Vishnuvardhan Rao and K.Sarojana have not been recorded by the Investigation Officer. 15. He further submitted that the Inquest report relating to the unidentified dead body in Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station reveals that as no claim was made within three days, the dead body was cremated by Ramannapeta Gram Panchayat. From this fact, it is clear that the exhumation of dead body in Crime No. 40 of 2008 on 30.06.2009 does not arise, as the dead body in Cr.No. 18 of 2008 has already been cremated by Ramannapeta Gram Panchayat. Further, the Post Mortem Report, dated 06.03.2008, of the unidentified dead body reveals that there were no external injuries found on the dead body of the unidentified body and also no poisonous substance was found in the body of the unknown person in Crime No.18 of 2008. However, a perusal of the confessional statement of A-3 reveals that the accused have allegedly strangulated the said Nallavelli Venkateshwarlu to death after giving him water mixed with sleeping pills. Therefore, it is clear that the confessional statement of A-3 in Crime No.40 of 2008 is utterly false and a cooked up story to suit the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the final report, dated 24.08.2011 filed by the Karimnagar II Town Police, discloses the suppression of D.N.A. Report, dated 02.02.2011 and the opinion of Associate Professor Mr.B.V.Naga Mohana Rao of Kakatiya Medical College dated 18.07.2009, and as such the charge sheet was returned by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimanagar. It is further submitted that the final report, dated 24.08.2011 filed by the Karimnagar II Town Police, discloses the suppression of D.N.A. Report, dated 02.02.2011 and the opinion of Associate Professor Mr.B.V.Naga Mohana Rao of Kakatiya Medical College dated 18.07.2009, and as such the charge sheet was returned by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimanagar. In spite of return of final report by the learned Magistrate for want of the above said documents, they were not placed by the Police before the learned Magistrate in order to suppress the material fact which proves the innocence of the petitioner/A-1. That apart, neither the D.N.A. report issued by the F.S.L., dated 02.02.2011 was placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate nor the doctors who conducted the examination, were shown as witnesses in the final report. Further, neither the Superimposition technique nor the D.N.A. report submitted by F.S.L. could establish that the unidentified body in Crime No.18 of 2008 is the same as that of the said Nallavelli Venkateswarlu, husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in Cr.No.40 of 2008. It is also submitted that a skull, two long bones and hair of the alleged exhumed unidentified dead body in Cr.No.18 of 2008 was sent to the F.S.L. for D.N.A. profile examination with that of son of Missing Man in Cr.No.40 of 2008, to find out whether unidentified dead body in Cr.No.18 of 2008 is that of a Man missing in Cr.No.40 of 2008. The Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report, dated 02.02.2011 opined that there was no D.N.A. yield in the said skull, two bones and hair and as such no report can be given. 16. It is further submitted that filing of second Quash Petition is maintainable in altered or changed circumstances. That if the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of subsequent application are different from the facts and circumstances at the time of the earlier application, then this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can prevent abuse of process of court. In the present case, the subsequent/second quash petition was filed in the altered circumstances after the petitioner/A-1 obtained D.N.A. Report, F.S.L. report and various such other documents which prove the case of the petitioner/A-1 that he was falsely implicated in Cr.No.40 of 2008 on the file of II Town PS, Karimanagar. 17. In the present case, the subsequent/second quash petition was filed in the altered circumstances after the petitioner/A-1 obtained D.N.A. Report, F.S.L. report and various such other documents which prove the case of the petitioner/A-1 that he was falsely implicated in Cr.No.40 of 2008 on the file of II Town PS, Karimanagar. 17. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following citations: 1. Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others, AIR 1975 SC 1002 2. Simrikha v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and others, (1990) 2 SCC 437 3. Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2019) SCC Online 941 18. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State would submit that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, initially Crime No.40 of 2008 has been registered under the head of “Man Missing”. During the course of investigation, the police looked into call data of the mobile number of the deceased and found that on 04.03.2008 at about 3.30 hours, the deceased received incoming call from mobile No.9985486778 and on enquiry, it has come to light that the said cell phone is being used by the petitioner/A-1, who is having criminal record and involved in 11 cases and presently, he is not using any mobile services. When the police contacted the family members about the relationship of the missing man with the petitioner/A-1 (Vaman Rao), they stated that the petitioner/A-1 has taken Rs.2.00 lakhs from the deceased with an assurance to provide employment to the son of the deceased, but he neither provided job nor returned the money. It is further submitted that basing on the second complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the police altered the Section of law from ‘Man Missing’ to Section 363 of I.P.C. It is also submitted that on 03.04.2009, while conducing vehicle check during general elections, the police intercepted a vehicle and apprehended four members and on interrogation, they confessed the commission of offence. Thereafter, the police, Karimnagar, came to know that an unknown body was found within the vicinity of Velgona/Ramannapet Circle of Nalgonda District and they registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2008 and after conducting panchanama and postmortem, they buried the dead body by taking photographs of the said person. Thereafter, the police, Karimnagar, came to know that an unknown body was found within the vicinity of Velgona/Ramannapet Circle of Nalgonda District and they registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2008 and after conducting panchanama and postmortem, they buried the dead body by taking photographs of the said person. The family members of the deceased have identified the said dead body as that of Venkateswarlu on looking at the photographs shown by Velgonda Police, and as such in the presence of panch witnesses, the Police, Karimnagar, exhumed the dead body, conducted inquest panchanama and remanded A-2 to A-5 to judicial custody. The confession of A-2 to A-5 and recovery leading to the discovery of the dead body proves larger conspiracy between the petitioner/A-1 and A-2 to A-5 and also the motive and participation of the petitioner/A-1 in the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that from the evidence, there is strong suspicion that A-1 is involved in kidnapping, conspiracy and killing of the deceased and to substantiate the same, the call data clearly proves the veracity of the prosecution case. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 2 ALD (Crl.) 314 and Charandas Swamy v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 7 SCC 117. He further submits that the burden is on the accused under Section 106 of I.P.C., to show as to how the dead body was found in the limits of Velgonda Police Station and the non-confirmation of the skull and bones as that of the deceased will not affect the case of prosecution, when there is ample evidence to prove the complicity of the petitioner/A-1 in the case and further the Police, Velgonda has taken the photographs of the unknown dead body and held inquest and postmortem, which are that of the deceased and the veracity of expert opinion and medical evidence can be ascertained only during the course of trial. 19. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant would submit that a criminal case cannot be quashed at the initial stage on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are not true, as the Court dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is not supposed to appreciate the evidence. 20. 19. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant would submit that a criminal case cannot be quashed at the initial stage on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are not true, as the Court dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is not supposed to appreciate the evidence. 20. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and having gone through the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court. 1. Whether in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can enter into the controversy that any case is made out against the petitioner or not? 2. Whether the present complaint has been moved due to personal vendetta and whether personal vendetta can be made an instrument to initiate the criminal proceedings? 21. The scope and exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has time and again come before the Apex Court. It is settled position of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. It is also settled position of law that if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in the absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 22. In R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically held that if there is legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings or there is no legal evidence to prove the charge, then the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. 23. In this regard, the land mark judgment is the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Crl.) 426 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines. 23. In this regard, the land mark judgment is the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Crl.) 426 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines. "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 24. A perusal of the material on record would show that initially, on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station was registered on 06.03.2008 under the head of “Man Missing”. Subsequently, on 10.12.2008, a second complaint was made by the 2nd respondent stating that on 19.09.2008 a press meet was conducted at Basheerbagh Press Club, Hyderabad, and her son Ajay Kumar went to the head office of TV9 Channel at about 7.00 P.M. to give paper publication with regard to missing of his father Venkateswarlu and in this regard her son met with one Gangadhar, Crime Reporter and informed him about the incident, thereupon, the said Crime Reporter made a call to the Mobile No.9866463412 of the petitioner/A-1 and took an interview over phone and during talks, the petitioner has confessed about the commission of offence. However, the statement of said Gangadhar, Crime Reporter was not recorded by the prosecution to substantiate its action in altering the Section of law from “Man Missing” to Section 363 of I.P.C. The prosecution has also failed to collect the call data of the petitioner and also the telephonic conversation alleged to have been made on 19.09.2008 between the petitioner and the said Gangadhar, Crime Reporter in the head office of TV-9 Channel. The second complaint dated 10.12.2008 was made by the 2nd respondent after 81 days of the alleged telephonic conversation between the said M.Gangadhar, Crime Reporter and the petitioner/A-1. The second complaint dated 10.12.2008 was made by the 2nd respondent after 81 days of the alleged telephonic conversation between the said M.Gangadhar, Crime Reporter and the petitioner/A-1. Further, nine months after the original complaint, dated 06.03.2008, the 2nd respondent filed the second complaint on 10.12.2008. Apart from that, the investigation revealed that the Mobile Number No.9866463412 does not belong to the petitioner/A-1 and it belongs to one Kolluri Sai Kumar. A perusal of the alteration memo would shows that the second complaint was received by the police on 10.12.2008 at 18.30 hours, but surprisingly, the alteration Memo was filed on 10.12.2008 at 11.30 A.M. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. The Memo further shows that the date of endorsement given by the Court was corrected as 11.12.2008, which clearly reveals the manipulations made by the police in collusion with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 25. It is also to be noted that surprisingly, the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar, filed another Memo dated 02.04.2009 before the learned Magistrate stating that on 03.04.2009 at about 9.00 A.M., while conducting vehicle checking at District Court Chowrasta, Karimnagar, he apprehended A-2 to A-5 and on interrogation they confessed that on the instructions of the petitioner/A-1, they kidnapped the said Venkateswarlu, demanded him to give money and as he refused the same, they killed him by giving sleeping pills mixed with water and thereafter strangulated him with a towel. From the confessional panchanama of A-2 to A-5, it is clear that A-2 to A-5 were arrested on 03.04.2009 at 9.00 A.M., but the police filed alteration memo on 02.04.2009 itself before the Court. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Memo altering Section of law was before the date of apprehension of A-2 to A-5. Apart from that, basing on the confession made by A-2 to A-5, the police seized the towel, which was allegedly used to strangulate the said Venkateswarlu on 18.04.2009 i.e., after a period of one year from the date of alleged offence. Further, the police recovered the vehicle which was used in the commission of offence, on 19.04.2009. The confessional statement of A-3 reveals that the vehicle, allegedly involved in the crime, belongs to one Mr. Chary, which was later on sold to one Vishnuvardhan Rao, but whereas, one K.Sarojana filed Crl. Further, the police recovered the vehicle which was used in the commission of offence, on 19.04.2009. The confessional statement of A-3 reveals that the vehicle, allegedly involved in the crime, belongs to one Mr. Chary, which was later on sold to one Vishnuvardhan Rao, but whereas, one K.Sarojana filed Crl. M.P.No.479 of 2009 in Cr.No.40 of 2008 for release of the vehicle stating that she is the owner of the vehicle and subsequently the said vehicle was released in her favour vide order, dated 11.05.2009. Further, the statements of said Chary, Vishnuvardhan Rao and K.Sarojana have not been recorded by the police. 26. Further, on 06.03.2008, the V.R.O., Nagaram Village, lodged a complaint before the S.H.O., Valigonda Police Station, stating that one Bona Muthyala informed him that a dead body of an unknown male person was found in a water pit near his tank and on that, he went there and found the dead body of a male person near the road culvert between Nagaram and Karimnagar and, therefore, he requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station, came to be registered on 06.03.2008 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The police, after conducting inquest over the said unidentified body, cremated the same as nobody claimed the said dead body. In column No.vii of the inquest panchanama, conducted in Crime No.18 of 2008, it is mentioned that “on examination of the dead body, there were no external injuries and that the deceased was wearing wheat colour full sleeves checks shirt, white colour full banyan and snuff coloured pant.” It is significant to note that the original inquest report with the photographs have not been filed in the Court. It is pertinent to mention here that in Crime No. 40 of 2008, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stated in her complaint that her husband was wearing Coffee Colour Pant, Saffron colour shirt on the date of alleged offence. Therefore, it is clear that the clothes worn by the unknown male person in Crime No. 18 of 2008 and the clothes worn by the deceased in Crime No. 40 of 2008 are entirely different and do not match with each other. 27. Therefore, it is clear that the clothes worn by the unknown male person in Crime No. 18 of 2008 and the clothes worn by the deceased in Crime No. 40 of 2008 are entirely different and do not match with each other. 27. A perusal of the confessional statement of the alleged co-accused would show that they have administered sleeping tablets/pills by mixing it in water to Nallavelli Venkateswarlu and strangulated him with a towel and threw the dead body in a pit filled with water at the outskirts of Valigonda. As per the Post Mortem Report, dated 06.03.2008 conducted at Government Health Centre, Ramannapeta also “no external injuries were found on the unidentified dead body and no external injuries were found on the Neck, Pharynx, thyroid and other neck structure and that no abnormality was detected in the Brain, Mouth, Teeth, Blood Vessels etc. Apart from that, part of small intestine, liver and gall bladder and one kidney of the un-identified boy in Crime No.18 of 2008 were sent for F.S.L. examination and that the F.S.L. submitted its report on 15.05.2008 stating that no poisonous substance was found in the un-identified dead body and that it was a natural death. It is medically proven and legally accepted that in case of manual strangulation, the face may be livid, blotchy and swollen, the eyes wide open, bulging and suffused, the pupils dilated, the tongue swollen, dark coloured and protruded. Bloody froth may come out from the mouth and nostrils and there may be bleeding from nose and ears. Hands are usually clenched. The larynx, trachea and bronchi are congested and contain frothy, often blood stained mucous. The brain is congested and shows petechial hemorrhages. In the present case on hand, none of the body parts or organs above mentioned have been detected any abnormality. Since no external injuries were noticed and no poisonous substance was found in the un-identified dead body in Crime No.18 of 2008, it cannot be said that the deceased was allegedly given sleeping pills and thereafter he was strangulated. In the present case on hand, none of the body parts or organs above mentioned have been detected any abnormality. Since no external injuries were noticed and no poisonous substance was found in the un-identified dead body in Crime No.18 of 2008, it cannot be said that the deceased was allegedly given sleeping pills and thereafter he was strangulated. Further, it is interesting to note that the Investigating Officer made a request to the Tahsildar, Valigonda of Nalgonda District to transfer Crime No.18 of 2008 on the file of Valigonda Police Station (case of unidentified and unclaimed dead body) to merge with the subject Crime No.40 of 2008 and to send original F.I.R. and Inquest Report of the said Crime No.18 of 2008. In response to the above said letter, the Tahsildar, Valigonda, sent a reply to the Circle Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station stating that the original F.I.R. and the Original Inquest Report were not traceable and that the Record Keeper has retired from service. Thus, it is clear that the police falsely merged the present Crime No. 40 of 2008 with Crime No. 18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station. Subsequently, on 30.06.2009, a dead body which was wrapped in a Mat and buried at Smashana Vatika, Ramannapeta was exhumed by the Police, Karimnagar Police Station, without obtaining any permission from the Executive Magistrate. In the Inquest Report, in the column meant for setting out the details as to the purpose of exhumation and on whose orders or permission the said exhumation was conducted, it was noted as ‘Nil’. Therefore, it cannot be said that the un-identified dead body found in respect of Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station, is that of the deceased in Cr.No.40 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, and that the police falsely merged the subject Crime No.40 of 2008 with Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution could not establish any nexus between Crime No.18 of 2008 of Valigonda Police Station and the present Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station. 28. Further, the statements of Village Administrate Officer, Nagaram, and others were not recorded on the ground that the unidentified dead body was buried and not cremated. 28. Further, the statements of Village Administrate Officer, Nagaram, and others were not recorded on the ground that the unidentified dead body was buried and not cremated. Apart from that, the Inquest report of the unidentified dead body was not signed by the Police Officer, who conducted the Inquest. It is also to be noted that the Post Mortem Report has not been signed by the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem on the unidentified dead body. That apart, the skull, tuft of hair, pelvic bone of the exhumed dead body were sent to F.S.L. for D.N.A. match with the blood samples of one Ajay Kumar, son of the deceased Venkateswarlu. A perusal of the F.S.L. report, dated 02.02.2011 would show that there was no D.N.A. yield in the said skull, two bones and tuft hair and as such no report can be given. 29. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner/A-1, being a law student during the years 1999 to 2002, used to lodge complaints before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad against the brutality of the police. Though the police warned the petitioner/A-1 not to draft such petitions, he being a Social Activist continued to help the innocent persons, who were harassed by local police. As a result of which, the police developed bore grudge against him. 30. The record further shows that in the year 2008, the petitioner/A-1 got filed complaint before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad vide HRC No. 413 of 2008, through one T.Rama Devi, who was harassed by one Ganapath Jhadav, Circle Inspector of Police by detaining her in the police station illegally and assaulted her, without any complaint whatsoever, due to which she was received severe injuries all over her body. A detailed enquiry has been conducted and found guilty of the said Ganapath Jhadav C.I. of Police. Thereafter, the police foisted 12 false cases against the petitioner alleging various offences including kidnapping, cheating etc., and most of the said cases were quashed by this Court and in three cases he was acquitted. Due to the harassment of said Ganapathi Jadav, C.I. of Police as well as other police personnel in Karimnagar Town, the petitioner/A-1 filed H.R.C.No.774 of 2008 and also submitted a detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, dated 20.03.2008. Due to the harassment of said Ganapathi Jadav, C.I. of Police as well as other police personnel in Karimnagar Town, the petitioner/A-1 filed H.R.C.No.774 of 2008 and also submitted a detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, dated 20.03.2008. As the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, did not take any steps on the said representation, dated 20-03-2008, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11422 of 2008, wherein this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar to dispose of the representation of the petitioner/A-1, dated 20-03-2008 in accordance with law. Without implementing the said order, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, declared that the petitioner/A-1 is “most wanted”. Without any other option, the petitioner/A-1 again filed W.P.No.23380 of 2008 seeking a direction to the police not to harass the petitioner/A-1 in any manner. After disposal of the said writ petition, the police did not stop their harassment towards the petitioner/A-1 and falsely implicated him in the present crime as well as in Crime No. 35 of 2008 and Crime No. 4 of 2009 of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, for which, the petitioner/A-1 filed W.P.Nos.12346, 12360 and 12363 of 2009 to quash the proceedings in the said three crimes. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, to appoint another police officer to investigate into the above mentioned three crimes registered against the petitioner/A-1. Thereafter the said Ganapathi Jadav, Circle Inspector of Police, was transferred. From the above, it is clear that the police foisted the present crime only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner with a view to spite him due to personal grudges. 31. Therefore, the aforesaid facts would show that the instant criminal proceedings are instituted against the petitioner/A-1 maliciously with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioner/A-1 and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudges and as such the same squarely falls under Category No.7 of the guidelines enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (7 supra) to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (7 supra) to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. According to guideline No.7 of Bhajan Lal’s case (7 supra), where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal grudge, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. The haphazard manner in which the investigation had been undertaken also clearly established the fact that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. 32. For all the reasons stated above, this Court, without any hesitation comes to a conclusion that the petitioner has made out a clear case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint in Cr.No.40 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, against the petitioner/A-1. 33. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2014 (Crl.P.M.P.No.2840 of 2014) is ordered and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A-1 in Crime No.40 of 2008 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station, are hereby quashed. 34. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.