ORDER : The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in C.C.No.108/2013 arising out of Cr.No.346/2012 registered by the Chickballapura Rural P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 134(A)(B), 187 of the IMV Act. The petitioner is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.108/2013 pending before Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State. In this matter, Respondent No.2/Venkateshappa though has engaged the services of the counsel Shri Suresh M. Lathur, the said counsel is neither present before court physically nor appears through video conferencing. However, in this matter, it is relevant to refer to Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. When once the case has been registered by the police by recording an FIR in Cr.No.346/2012 and then, the domain is vested with the Public Prosecutor/High Court Government Pleader to appear and plead without any written authority before the court. Hence, it is said that learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 is representing not only the State but also the complainant under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. Though Respondent No.2 has engaged the services of a counsel, but the said counsel cannot independently address arguments but only can assist the learned HCGP for the State. Accordingly, heard the arguments of the learned HCGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, based upon the complaint filed by the complainant Venkateshappa with the Chickballapur Rural P.S. on 30.08.2012 at around 10.30 a.m. stating that on 22.07.2012, the complainant Venkateshappa and his daughter Chikkanarayanamma were returning home in a TVS moped bearing No.KA05HJ9344 after meeting an astrologer at Devastanadahosahalli near Chickaballapur. While they were on their way to home on NH7 at around 3.00 p.m., near Doddapylagurki Gate, while he was taking ‘U’ turn slowly, that a car bearing No.KA01/MG2383 which was coming from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner, had hit on the TVS moped. As a result of that, the complainant Venkateshappa had sustained accidental injuries on his left elbow and left leg and also some abrasions on his right palm, forehead, left arm and on the back. Similarly, his daughter Chikkanarayanamma had also sustained abrasion on both her knees. As a result of that, the complainant Venkateshappa had sustained accidental injuries on his left elbow and left leg and also some abrasions on his right palm, forehead, left arm and on the back. Similarly, his daughter Chikkanarayanamma had also sustained abrasion on both her knees. The persons who were present nearby the scene of crime had secured an ambulance and had sent both of them to Chickaballapur Government Hospital and after the Doctor there had provided first aid to them, on the Doctor’s advice, they were shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, in order to provide better treatment. But the driver of the offending car and its owner had approached the second respondent and paid him a sum of Rs.40,000/for their treatment and also assured them of bearing the medical expenditure. But subsequently on filing a complaint by the complainant, the case in Cr.No.346/2012 came to be registered by the Chickaballapur Rural P.S. and the case was taken up by the Investigating Agency and laid a chargesheet against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013. This is the pith and substance of the allegations made in the complaint and also reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Chickaballapur Rural P.S. 4. The learned Senior counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioner contends that through the second respondent, namely Venkateshappa had suffered injuries on his left leg and also abrasion injuries on his right arm and so also on the part of his forehead and so also left arm, but the injured Venkateshappa was firstly provided treatment at the Government Hospital, Chickamagalur and thereafter was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment and that the petitioner had visited the second respondent/injured at Bowring Hospital where he was admitted and had paid him Rs.40,000/towards treatment expenses and further he had also assured the second respondent/Venkateshappa/injured, that he would bear the medical expenditure. However, the second respondent has filed the complainant stating that the petitioner arraigned as accused in the aforesaid crime, did not turn up to the hospital when the second respondent had made attempt to contact the petitioner. But actually, the petitioner had visited Venkateshappa in the hospital where he was under treatment due to the accidental injuries, and had also borne the medical expenses amounting to Rs.40,000/, which indicates that the petitioner has maintained a humanitarian consideration. But actually, the petitioner had visited Venkateshappa in the hospital where he was under treatment due to the accidental injuries, and had also borne the medical expenses amounting to Rs.40,000/, which indicates that the petitioner has maintained a humanitarian consideration. But the material placed on record in respect of the chargesheet laid by the Investigating Officer even if accepted in its entirety as uncontroverted evidence in the matter, but the same do not bring home any offences against the petitioner arraigned as accused to have caused injuries to the second respondent due to petitioner’s rash and negligence. The second respondent Venkateshappa is no more, but he has been cited as a witness and chargesheet has been laid against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013. But it is to be noticed that the accident had taken place while the TVS moped which was ridden by the second respondent had taken a ‘U’ turn in National Highway No.7, without seeing either side. The accident had occurred due to the fact that the second respondent had not noticed the car coming from Hyderabad side before taking ‘U’ turn, but has stated in his complaint that all of a sudden the offending car had come from Hyderabad side and had hit on the TVS moped which was ridden by the injured Venkateshappa, as a result of which he sustained injuries. 5. Further the respondent Venkateshappa had not filed a complaint immediately on 22.07.2012 after having met with the accident as narrated in the complaint. But it was filed on 30.08.2012. The second respondent was aware that he was also responsible for the accident which occurred at the scene of crime. But the petitioner has even borne the medical expenditure to the tune of Rs.40,000/on a humanitarian consideration. The very petitioner had approached the injured Venkateshappa while he was under treatment in Bowring Hospital, Bangalore and had paid him Rs.40,000/. A copy of the letter/receipt dated 24.07.2012 for having received towards entire medical expenditure has been produced, for the purpose of perusal. But the second respondent Venkateshappa who is arraigned as a complainant in Cr.No.346/2012 had filed a complaint after a lapse of 8 days, that is on 30.08.2012. A copy of the letter/receipt dated 24.07.2012 for having received towards entire medical expenditure has been produced, for the purpose of perusal. But the second respondent Venkateshappa who is arraigned as a complainant in Cr.No.346/2012 had filed a complaint after a lapse of 8 days, that is on 30.08.2012. It is only with an intention to make some lawful gain that the second respondent had filed the said complaint and made a statement before the police in order to register the crime against the accused that the accident has occurred due to the petitioner’s rash and negligence. 6. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel is that though the case in Cr.No.346/2012 registered by the Chikkaballapur Rural P.S. for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, and Section 134 (A) (B) and Section 187 MV Act, even at a cursory glance of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, the said ingredients as against the allegation requires to be established by the prosecution by letting the second respondent Venkateshappa to give evidence to substantiate the case. But he is no more. But though the chargesheet has been laid by the I.O. against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013, and even subjected to examination the witnesses who have been cited in the chargesheet, but consequence of the aforesaid case is based upon the evidence which has to be adduced on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But when the complainant who is the author of the complaint has made some allegation against the accused in respect of each one of the offences reflected in the FIR and reflected in the chargesheet laid by the I.O., but the prosecution requires to produce worthwhile evidence. Unless worthwhile evidence is produced, it cannot be arrived that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the Doctrine of criminal justice delivery system. 7. The petitioner has borne the medical expenditure of Rs.40,000/of the injured while he was admitted in Bowring hospital in order to provide better treatment, and also complainant has filed a complaint after a lapse of several days, that is on 30.08.2012. The very complainant is very much conscious and responsible that the accident had occurred due to his own negligence, which has been narrated in his complaint. The very complainant is very much conscious and responsible that the accident had occurred due to his own negligence, which has been narrated in his complaint. On all these premise, the learned Senior counsel seeks for intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If not, the gravamen of the accused would be the sufferer. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and to quash the case in C.C.No.108/2013 pending before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickaballapur. 8. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the statement of complaint given by Venkateshappa who is an injured who has sustained accidental injuries and he took treatment in Government Hospital, Chickmagalur initially and later he has been shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, as per the advise of Doctor to provide better treatment. Merely because the medical expenditure has been borne out by the petitioner who is arraigned as accused, it cannot be said that the accused is not cause of the accident as narrated in the complaint filed by the second respondent Venkateshappa. Though the complainant Venkateshappa is no more, but the other witnesses ought to be examined by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt in respect of the offences lugged against the accused in the chargesheet. Unless the witnesses have been examined on the part of the prosecution and even the witnesses stood for defence, a decision cannot be arrived at this stage that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of the remaining witnesses cited in the chargesheet. On all these premise, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner/accused. 9. In the context of the contentions taken by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and so also the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to refer that the Chickmagalur Rural P.S. have recorded an FIR by registering the case in Cr.No.346/2012 on 30.08.2012 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, and Section 134 (A) (B) and Section 187 MV Act. But the incident had taken place on 22.07.2012 at around 15 hours. But the incident had taken place on 22.07.2012 at around 15 hours. But after a lapse of several days, the injured Venkateshappa who is cited as the complainant in the chargesheet and also arraigned as Respondent No.2 herein, filed a complaint on 30.08.2012 at around 10.30.a.m. But it is an oral complaint made by him before the Station House Officer, Chickmagalur Rural P.S. and that complaint was reduced into writing as contemplated under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and then proceeded with the case for investigation and laid a chargesheet against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013. Whereas in the instant case, Venkateshappa who is arraigned as a complainant and also cited as a witness in the chargesheet laid by the Investigating Agency before the court having jurisdiction to deal the matter. Now, Venkateshappa is no more. But the said Venkateshappa while he was admitted in Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, he required to be provided better treatment to save his life in view of the fact of having suffered accidental injuries. The said expenses incurred at Rs.40,000/was borne by the petitioner, which reveals his humanitarian consideration and this is also a contention taken by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in this petition seeking intervention under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. But the prosecution has mainly bank upon the evidence of the injured Venkateshappa in so far as the accidental case. Therefore, it is relevant to refer the ratio of reliance in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. L. MUNISWAMY & ORS., reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 , wherein it is observed as under: “In the, exercise of this whole some power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the; ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the, legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction”. This observation is also referred by the Apex Court in ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA’S case of AIR 2019 SC 210 at para Nos.16 and 28 respectively, referred to supra. 10. In the instant case, the very nature of the case on which the prosecution rests is, on the evidence of Respondent No.2 Venkateshappa who is the instrument of the complaint and also he being the author of the complaint. But the very author of the complaint is no more. But in criminal justice delivery system, the offence alleged has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt for securing conviction. If clouds of doubt occur, the benefit of doubt shall be accrued in favour of the accused alone. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid Doctrine relating to criminal justice delivery system, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise the power as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for securing the ends of justice, which is the objectivity of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If not exercised, certainly there shall be a miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. Hence, there is no hesitation in quashing the FIR relating to the case in C.C.No.108/2013, though the chargesheet has been laid by the I.O. against the accused. 11. Hence, there is no hesitation in quashing the FIR relating to the case in C.C.No.108/2013, though the chargesheet has been laid by the I.O. against the accused. 11. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this matter, it is relevant for intervention to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whereas in this Section 482 Cr.P.C., nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. though it has been enshrined saving of the inherent power of the High Court, this power shall be exercised judicially, judiciously, sparingly and cautiously. It is well-settled that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of the court, but there would be justification for interference only when the concept of the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. But in the instant case, it does not arise for even dwelling into the materials secured by the Investigating Agency in Cr.No.346/2012 in order to lay the chargesheet against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013. Therefore, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in the instant case. If not, the gravamen of the accused would be the sufferer. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is said that there is no hesitation to quash the case in C.C.No.108/2013 pending before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickaballapur arising out of Cr.No.346/2012. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.108/2013 pending before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge & CJM, Chickaballapur arising out of Cr.No.346/2012 are hereby quashed.