ORDER : The petitioners herein arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 respectively in C.C.No.1718 of 2009, which is pending before the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru have filed this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent against them in the aforesaid charge-sheeted case, by urging various grounds. 2. Heard Shri. D.R. Anandeeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners who is physically present before the Court and so also, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/State. 3. It is transpired from the case of the prosecution that the complainant, Jayaram had filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, White-Field Police Station, Bengaluru vide Annexure-‘A’ wherein he has stated the subject as assault and looting of house-hold articles, gold jewelleries, cash and other valuables, etc., which is a typed complaint. In the said complaint, it is specifically stated that Sri. Muniswamappa was conferred with the occupancy right by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk in respect of Sy.No.44 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas of Pattandur Village, in which they have constructed a house and he is residing in the said house. Ever since the conferment of the rights, the said Muniswamappa continued in possession and enjoyment of the same and is in possession and enjoyment till today. But on 11.06.1996, in the evening, when the complainant was out of the house and his wife, Smt. Rukmini who was a pregnant lady in the house, the said Kodihalli Sonnappa, Mohan Rao and others numbering about 30 persons illegally entered into the house and assaulted his wife and looted the household articles, jewelleries, cash and other valuables from his house worth about Rs.3,00,000/- and threatened to leave the house. The complaint was lodged along with the list of valuables, which were looted from his house. 4. Though the list of valuables appended with the typed complaint as filed by him on 12.06.1996, but the said list is not appended with any receipt relating to the purchase of gold items stated in the said list. 5. Based upon his complaint, the case in Cr.No.112 of 1996 has been registered by the Whitefield Police and laid the ‘B’ final report on 02.10.1996 and produced ‘B’ final report vide Annexure-‘C’. But the second respondent, namely, Jayaram filed a Protest Petition before the Court having jurisdiction to proceed further. 5. Based upon his complaint, the case in Cr.No.112 of 1996 has been registered by the Whitefield Police and laid the ‘B’ final report on 02.10.1996 and produced ‘B’ final report vide Annexure-‘C’. But the second respondent, namely, Jayaram filed a Protest Petition before the Court having jurisdiction to proceed further. Based upon Protest Memo, the jurisdictional Court accepted the Protest Memo of the second respondent and directed the Kadugodi C.P.I for investigation. After referring the matter for investigation through C.P.I vide order dated 04.03.1999 and thereafter hearing, the Trial Court once again modified the said order dated 04.03.1999 and the case has been referred to the jurisdictional Deputy Superintended of Police for investigation on 18.03.2000. After the direction of the Trial Court, the deputy Superintendent of Police once again had filed ‘B’ report on 23.02.2001 in Cr.No.112 of 1996. It is further stated in the petition that against the said ‘B’ report dated 23.02.2001, the second respondent had once against filed Protest Petition. The Trial Court after hearing the complainant on Protest Petition on 24.01.2003 had rejected the complaint of the second respondent. Against the said order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the Trial Court, the second respondent had filed a criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2003 before the District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which came to be allowed and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the same and thereafter, the complainant had adduced evidence of PW Nos.1 to 7 and got marked documents C1 to C61. Even after passing an order on the protest memo on 20.06.2009, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 48, 352, 506(B), 381, 148 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. against 13 persons including the petitioners. On the basis of an order passed by the Trial Court having jurisdiction, the first respondent police proceeded for investigation and laid the charge-sheet in C.C.No.1718 of 2009 vide Annexures-F and G. As such, the petitioners have filed the petition to quash the order dated 20.06.2009 and the proceedings in C.C.No.1718 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. The respondent after thorough investigation have laid the ‘B’ final report. The Trial Court after hearing the second respondent/complainant found that there was no material to register the case against the accused/petitioners and consequently, rejected the complaint. The respondent after thorough investigation have laid the ‘B’ final report. The Trial Court after hearing the second respondent/complainant found that there was no material to register the case against the accused/petitioners and consequently, rejected the complaint. All these grounds are urged by the petitioners for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in C.C.No.1718 of 2009, which is pending before the 1st ACJM, Bengaluru. 6. The learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent/State who took me through the substantial charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer in C.C.No.1718 of 2009 contended that the sum and substance of the charge-sheet which is in conformity with the allegations made in the typed complaint filed by the complainant, Jayaram. The Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the report as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the cognizance has taken by the Court of the 1st ACJM, Bengaluru. But cognizance, which is a domain vested with the Judicial Magistrate having powers to proceed further. But in the instant case, thee charge-sheet has been laid against the accused persons and moreover, the incident took place on 17.06.1996 at around 4.30 p.m. That in all, several persons entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted his wife and alleged to grabbed her otherwise, to say, looted the household articles in terms of cash, jewelleries worth of Rs.3 Lakhs and also extending life threat to her. But the materials secured by the Investigating Officer in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused would be subjected to test and also subjected to cross-examination of the witnesses, unless subjected to test, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that there are no prima facie materials against the accused as at this stage by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and on all these premises, the learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the petition filed by the accused/petitioners. 7. 7. In the backdrop of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the charge-sheet materials secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and so also the ‘B’ report submitted by the Whitefield Police Station, Bangalore City and the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State by referring the charge-sheet materials and so also the typed complaint filed by the complainant thereon addressed to the PSI of Whitefield P.S. and so also marking of the complaint by the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District, Bangalore. But Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear as to under what circumstances the accused shall be discharged and as to when such circumstances have to be taken into consideration by the Judicial Magistrate having power to entertain this application. If upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and making such examination of the accused, it is necessary after the prosecution giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. However, the court must proceed on the presumption that the materials placed on record by the prosecution are true and must evaluate such materials with a view to find out whether facts disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. 8. In the instant case, the first respondent / police have laid the ‘B’ report based upon the complaint filed by the complainant Jayaram, S/o. Muniswamappa. However, the statements of PW1 to PW7 have been recorded and documents at Exhibits C1 to C61 were marked and cognizance has been taken and then the Jurisdictional police having domain have been directed to investigate the case. Accordingly, they have investigated the case and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. 9. But Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in the present case, since it is well-settled that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and nowhere a specific remedy is provided by the statute. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary one, it should be exercised only sparingly. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary one, it should be exercised only sparingly. Therefore, in the instant case, the complaint was filed by one Jayaram, S/o. Muniswamappa vide Annexure-“A” alleging of assault and looting of household articles, gold jewellary and cash and other valuables by the accused. It is stated in the complaint that on 11.6.1996 in the evening when the complainant Jayaram was not present in the house, but his wife Rukmini, a carrying woman was present in the house, that one Kodihalli Sonnappa and Mohan Rao and others about 30 persons had entered his house and assaulted his wife Rukmini and looted the household articles including cash and jewellary worth about Rs.3,00,000/-. This complaint is appended with the list of valuables in terms of gold items. 10. However, there is a remedial measure under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. to these petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.1718/2009 by filing an application seeking discharge by urging various grounds relating to the materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. Hence, exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the instant case, cannot arise, as the complainant Jayaram had filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Whitefield Police Station, Bangalore with the caption ‘Assault and Looting of Household Articles, gold jewelleries, cash and other valuables, etc.,’ But ‘etc.’ is a word in further of the typed complaint but it cannot be said that at this stage in order to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in C.C.No.1718/2009. Therefore, it is deemed proper that this petition deserves to be rejected in view of the aforesaid reasons. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners / accused respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. But liberty is granted to this petitioners / accused to file an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge where the case in C.C.No.1718/2009 is pending before the Court of the I Addl. CMM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Since it is a case of the year 2009, if the accused were to file an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, the copy of the same shall be furnished to the concerned Public Prosecutor in that court to enable him to file objections if any in response to that application. CMM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Since it is a case of the year 2009, if the accused were to file an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, the copy of the same shall be furnished to the concerned Public Prosecutor in that court to enable him to file objections if any in response to that application. Thereafter, the said application seeking discharge shall be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law. However, any observations made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.