ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 163/2017 and S.C. No. 306/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 365, 511, 331, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-59). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who is working as an advisor to Sri. K.S. Eshwarappa, Opposition Leader, made the allegation that on 11.05.2017 at around 4.00 p.m. while he was travelling from his friend Jagadeesh’s house to Malleshwaram in his vehicle, when he was passing through Mahalakshmi Layout, a car came from behind and dashed his car. When he stepped out of the car to check if there were any damages, three people asked him to come and check if something had happened to the front portion of his car. At that time, one person held him tightly from behind and tried to make him sit inside the car. A person sitting in the driver seat had kept the car on and remaining 5-6 people hit the informant and tried to push him inside the car and the informant objected to this and fought back and when they failed to push the informant inside the car, he fell on the road and started shouting and at this point of time, when the public started gathering, the miscreants pushed him outside the car and fled away. Based on the complaint, the police have registered Crime No. 163/2017. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, which is numbered as C.C. No. 27590/2017 and thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is numbered as S.C. No. 306/2018. 3. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in this petition, mainly contend that there is no specific overt-act attributed against him. It is also his case that there is no material against the petitioner that he involved in the commission of the offence. 3. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in this petition, mainly contend that there is no specific overt-act attributed against him. It is also his case that there is no material against the petitioner that he involved in the commission of the offence. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge, without application of mind to the allegations in the charge-sheet, both original and supplementary, without recording any satisfaction as to whether any case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner, in a mechanical manner, taken cognizance twice, which is bad in law, impermissible and unsustainable. It is also contended that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner and even in 161 statement of the witnesses. It is contended that the witnesses, who remotely mentioned the name of the petitioner also are not direct witnesses, but in the nature of alleged hear-say witnesses, whose evidence will not render any support to the prosecution. It is also contended that further investigation was conducted without obtaining the permission of the learned Magistrate. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 4. Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that the case is registered against the unknown persons. CW-1 is the complainant. CWs. 2 to 10 are the panch witnesses. CWs. 17 and 18 are the mahazar witnesses for seizure of the mobile and CD. CWs. 19 to 23 are the eye-witnesses. CWs. 24 to 26 are the one who found the assailants. CW-27 is the owner of the car. CWs. 32 and 33 are the owners of the lodge. CW-34 is the owner of the bar. The only witness is CW-41 and his statement also does not support the case of the prosecution regarding whatsapp messages. CWs. 45 and 48 are the Investigating Officers. CW-43 is the doctor, who treated the injured. The learned counsel referring the statements of these witnesses would contend that the statement of CW-1 is only a hear-say statement. Based on the statement of the co-accused, he made the statement. The Trial Judge has taken the cognizance vide order dated 05.02.2018 and committed an error in issuing the summons vide order dated 24.03.2018. The learned counsel submits that supplementary charge-sheet has been filed and permission is not taken to further investigate the matter. Based on the statement of the co-accused, he made the statement. The Trial Judge has taken the cognizance vide order dated 05.02.2018 and committed an error in issuing the summons vide order dated 24.03.2018. The learned counsel submits that supplementary charge-sheet has been filed and permission is not taken to further investigate the matter. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that considering the material collected by the Investigating Officer, there is no specific material against the petitioner. Hence, the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 14 of the judgment, wherein it is held that summoning of the accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima-facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record. 6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 53 and 54 of the judgment, wherein it is observed that the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. In paragraph No. 54, the Apex Court has observed that there has to be a proper satisfaction in this behalf which should be duly recorded by the Special Judge on the basis of material on record. No such exercise is done. In this scenario, having regard to the aforesaid aspects coupled with the legal position explained above, it is difficult too sustain the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 in its present form insofar as it relates to implicating the appellants and summoning them as accused persons. 7. The learned counsel referring these two judgments would vehemently contend that even when there was no material against the petitioner, the learned Judge has not applied his mind while issuing the summons. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the CDR is collected in respect of this petitioner and in the said CDR there was a call between the petitioner and the accused and in respect of second phone also CDR was collected, but there were no call contacts between the petitioner and the accused. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that when conspiracy has been invoked against the petitioner that he indulged in employing other accused persons to kidnap the informant and secure the CD, the same has to be adjudicated in trial. 9. The complainant, who is a party-in-person in his argument he vehemently contend that in paragraph No. 24, specific details has been given with regard to the involvement of this petitioner that he engaged the other accused persons to kidnap him and to secure the CD, which was in his possession and the same relates to him. The complainant in his submission would submit that he has not relied over the mobile in which he was having contact with the accused persons. The informant would also contend that this petitioner was working as a Private Secretary to the present Chief Minister and the present Chief Minister had written a letter to the Investigating Officer not to take any action against him and this petitioner is very influential person and he has been protected. The informant would also contend that this petitioner was working as a Private Secretary to the present Chief Minister and the present Chief Minister had written a letter to the Investigating Officer not to take any action against him and this petitioner is very influential person and he has been protected. It is also his contention that supplementary charge-sheet was filed with regard to inventory which has been done subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet. He also submits that photographs and videographs are produced and this petitioner and other accused persons were together and it requires the trial and without the trial, there cannot be any decision with regard to the involvement of this petitioner. 10. The respondent No. 2 party-in-person also brought to the notice of this Court that the material collected clearly discloses that interference was made in the investigation and proper investigation was not conducted. The other accused persons, at the instance of the petitioner, made an attempt to kidnap him, but failed when resisted and when the assailants noticed the public had gathered at the spot, they fled away from the place. The party-in-person also filed the written arguments reiterating the same and categorically says that the witnesses, who have been examined by the Investigating Officer, have clearly and unequivocally had stated that this petitioner was involved in the crime. The same can be thrashed out in the trial. On perusal of the investigation, it came to the light that this petitioner had involved in committing the crime and he conspired with accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 took the assistance of other accused persons to kidnap him. It is also his contention that accused No. 3 Prashanth, who was a rowdy-sheeter, had died in mysterious circumstances when the name of this petitioner was surfaced in the present case. It is also contended that conspiracy was done in the hotel and the statement of the witnesses was also recorded. It is also his allegation that the present Chief Minister indulged in influencing the Investigating Officer to protect the petitioner. It is also his case that he had given a CD showing the video clips wherein the petitioner was participating in a meeting to conspire against him, but the police have not made any investigation or acted upon the same. All these aspects has to be death with only in a full-fledged trial. It is also his case that he had given a CD showing the video clips wherein the petitioner was participating in a meeting to conspire against him, but the police have not made any investigation or acted upon the same. All these aspects has to be death with only in a full-fledged trial. The respondent No. 2 party-in-person has sent his written submissions to the learned counsel for the petitioner through RPAD on 18.01.2021 and has enclosed the postal receipt. 11. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and respondent No. 2 party-in-person, this Court has to examine whether there is a material to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. This Court has already pointed out the contents of the complaint referred supra. This Court would like to refer the contents of the charge-sheet and in the charge-sheet, specific allegation is made that the petitioner conspired with accused No. 2 to kidnap CW-1 complainant and accused No. 2 took the assistance of accused Nos. 3 to 11 in order to snatch the CD, pen-drive, laptop and screen shot having chatted with CW-1, which were there in the mobile of CW-1. The vehicle number was also changed in conspiracy with accused No. 12. When CW-1 was returning from the house of his friend Jagadeesh, an attempt was made to kidnap him in order to snatch the evidence which CW-1 was having. 12. Having perused the records available before this Court, in total 48 witnesses were examined. Out of 48 witnesses, CW-1 makes the specific allegation against the petitioner that he conspired with accused Nos. 2 to 11. It is also the case of the prosecution that this petitioner also conspired with accused No. 12, providing the vehicle and accordingly while handing over the vehicle, the vehicle number was also tampered and changed the number plate. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. CW-41 particularly speaks with regard to conspiracy. She is the friend of both the petitioner and the complainant and she speaks with regard to the petitioner inviting the accused persons for food to hotel through whatsapp and phone. She also speaks with regard to the conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons in order to kidnap CW-1 and subjecting him for assault. 13. She is the friend of both the petitioner and the complainant and she speaks with regard to the petitioner inviting the accused persons for food to hotel through whatsapp and phone. She also speaks with regard to the conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons in order to kidnap CW-1 and subjecting him for assault. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner referring the judgments referred supra is that there must be sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and in the absence of substantive piece of material, there cannot be any criminal proceedings, otherwise it amounts to abuse of process. Admittedly, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Thereafter, additional charge-sheet is also filed invoking Section 201 of IPC. While filing the charge-sheet, this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 1 based on the statements of the co-accused and also CW-41, particularly speaks with regard to conspiracy. CW-41 is not only the friend of the complainant but also friend of the petitioner. It is also important to note that further investigation was conducted, material was collected and additional charge-sheet was filed regarding changing of number plate and CWs. 35 and 38 who have changed the number plate. While filing the additional charge-sheet invoked Section 364A of IPC, a specific reason is mentioned that victim - CW-1 was subjected to assault and collected the medical evidence. Hence, Section 364A of IPC was invoked. While filing the additional charge-sheet, Section 364A of IPC was invoked and also conducted inventory and filed the additional charge-sheet. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Judge has not assigned the reason while issuing the process. On perusal of the order dated 23.11.2017, the learned trial Judge while issuing the process against the accused passed an order that he has perused the charge-sheet, its enclosures and other materials on record. Having perused the records formed an opinion that there is a prima-facie charge-sheet. Hence, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 364, 511, 331, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC taken against the accused and thereafter, issued the process. 14. Having perused the records formed an opinion that there is a prima-facie charge-sheet. Hence, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 364, 511, 331, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC taken against the accused and thereafter, issued the process. 14. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust’s case (supra), would submit that, the Apex Court held that, while summoning the accused in a criminal case, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and the order reflects specifically what are the offences are applicable thereto. He recorded his satisfaction with regard to the existence of prima-facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the charge-sheet and also it is specific that he has perused the charge-sheet, its enclosures and also other materials on record. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind, cannot be accepted. 15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal’s case (supra), held that, an opinion has to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. 16. Having perused the order which I have already noted above, he had applied his mind and formed his opinion that there is a prima-facie case against the accused persons. 17. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that a prime allegation against this accused is that he conspired with accused No. 2 to kidnap CW-1. Accused No. 2, in turn engaged the services of accused Nos.3 to 11 to kidnap the accused. CW-1 has sustained injury in the process of kidnapping him but due to resistance, the attempt was failed. The medical records also disclose that he had sustained the injuries. Accused No. 2, in turn engaged the services of accused Nos.3 to 11 to kidnap the accused. CW-1 has sustained injury in the process of kidnapping him but due to resistance, the attempt was failed. The medical records also disclose that he had sustained the injuries. It is also important to note that a specific allegation is that, this petitioner conspired with accused No. 2 and also along with other accused and at the instance of this petitioner, accused No. 12 had provided the vehicle by altering the number plate and in respect of the same, CWs. 35 and 38 speak about changing of the number plate. 18. In these circumstances, this Court would like to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2014) 3 SCC 401 , in this Judgment, the Apex Court categorically held that, criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, thus direct evidence is difficult to obtain or access. Offence can be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence or by necessary implication. Hence, it is clear that even though there was no direct evidence when the criminal conspiracy is alleged against this petitioner, it is settled law that the same is generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is difficult to obtain or access. The criminal conspiracy has to be proved by collecting the material through the circumstantial evidence. Hence, it requires trial. At this juncture, the Court cannot invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he had conspired with accused No. 2. It is also important to note that the call details of this petitioner and accused was also collected and on record it discloses that there were two calls between the accused and this petitioner prior to the incident i.e. on 5th and 8th of the particular month and the incident was taken place on 11.05.2017. No doubt, there is no more number of calls but the case has to be proved only on the circumstantial evidence since the prosecution relies upon particularly the statements of CW-1 and also CW-41. CW-41, is a friend of the complainant and also this petitioner. Hence, it requires full-pledged trial to prove the conspiracy as alleged against this petitioner under Section 120B of IPC. 19. CW-41, is a friend of the complainant and also this petitioner. Hence, it requires full-pledged trial to prove the conspiracy as alleged against this petitioner under Section 120B of IPC. 19. The other charge is that, he had involved in screening of the evidence and conspired with accused No. 2 providing the vehicle to kidnap. CWs. 35 and 38 speak with regard to changing of vehicle number and the same also has to be ascertained only on full-pledged trial. 20. Having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated against accused No. 1 has to be quashed. The other contention is that the learned trial Judge has not applied his mind also cannot be accepted and the learned trial Judge had applied his mind and formed an opinion even though with reference to the offences invoked against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the additional charge-sheet is also filed and while filing the additional charge-sheet, the materials are collected with regard to changing of the vehicle number plate and an attempt made to screening of the evidence and invoked Section 201 of IPC. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and truthfulness of the statement of witnesses has to be ascertained only after the trial and this Court cannot sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ascertains the truthfulness of the statement of witnesses. The disputed question cannot be answered in this petition. 21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER: The petition is dismissed.