ORDER : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. Since all these three criminal petitions are filed seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 pending before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘Trial Court’), arising out of First Information Report (FIR) No.70 of 2020 on the file of Central Crime Station (CCS), Detective Department (DD), Hyderabad, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.P.No.5753 of 2020 is filed by Smt. M. Uma Devi W/o. M. Sivananda Reddy (A2), partner in U & A Infra Projects, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020. 3. Crl.P.No.8 of 2021 is filed by Mr. P. Arogyam Reddy S/o. Arlapa Reddy, M/s. U & A, Infra Projects i.e., A1 and A6 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 pending before the Trial Court including further investigation in FIR No.70 of 2020. 4. Crl.P.No.461 of 2021 is filed by Mr. Mylaram Sattaiah S/o. Late M. Agamaiah, Mr. Mylaram Raju S/o. Late M. Gandaiah, Mr. Kalakolla Ashok S/o. K. Balaiah, i.e., A3 to A5 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020. 5. Crl.P.No.8 of 2021 is taken as lead case for disposal of these matters. 5.1 Brief facts in Crl.P.No.8 of 2021 are as under: The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 24.06.2020 at 16:50 hours stating that on 12.11.1993, the Inspector General of Police, SSF requested to allot the land in Survey Nos.393/1 to 393/20 admeasuring Acs.142-39 guntas situated at Manchirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal, in favour of “Greyhounds” for the purpose of Operational training and a report was called from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division on 03.11.1994. After inspection, it was found that the land was assigned to twenty (20) Scheduled Caste people (SC) by the then Tahsildar. The land is kept fallow and unfit for cultivation. The District Revenue Officer (DRO), Ranga Reddy (RR) District, took up the matter under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Land Revenue Act’) and issued show-cause notice to the assignees in File No.D1/275/1994 dated 28.03.1994 calling for explanation as to how the permission was granted for temporary occupation of Government land and why the subsequent Faisal Patti should not be cancelled. The DRO, RR District, after due enquiry, passed orders in File No.D1/275/1994 dated 15.09.1994 stating that he did not find any reasons to interfere with the orders of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, in respect of the land in Survey Nos.393/1 to 393/20 of Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, in assigning the land in favour of twenty (20) individuals. The District Collector, RR District, took up the matter under revision under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act and passed orders vide proceedings No.D1/81/95 dated 03.01.1995, suspending the orders of Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, in File No.A6/8526/20 and also the order of the DRO, RR District, in File No.D1/275/1994 dated 28.03.1994, pending further examination observing that the DRO, RR District, has not examined all the aspects in the case. 5.2 It is stated that one Mr. Mailaram Malkaiah and another preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on 29.05.1995 for setting aside the orders of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Proceedings No.D1/81/95 dated 03.01.1995. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.D1/81/95 dated 31.07.1995 has requested the Government to ratify his action of suspending the orders of the Tahsildar and DRO. The Government vide Memo No.544- 1/Assn.III(3)/95-1 dated 09.10.1995 took up suo moto review of the order of the DRO as per Section 166-C of the Land Revenue Act. The Government after careful examination of the case issued the above Memo dated 09.10.1995 directing the District Collector, RR District, to complete the enquiry taken up in the matter and pass final orders under intimation to the Government. 5.3 It is stated that the assignees represented by the General Power of Attorney Holder (GPA) filed two (2) writ petitions i.e., W.P. No.484 of 1995 questioning the order of the District Collector, RR District, in suspending the order of the DRO and W.P. No.7221 of 1996, questioning the order passed by the Government ratifying the action taken by the District Collector, RR District, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (for short ‘A.P. High Court’). Both the writ petitions were allowed by the common judgment dated 01.09.1997. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government preferred appeals in W.A. Nos.1487 of 1998 and 24 of 2000 challenging the common order dated 01.09.1997 in W.P. Nos.7221 of 1996 and 484 of 1995 respectively. The Division Bench has dismissed the appeals by its judgment dated 14.09.1998 and 22.01.2000 respectively. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government preferred appeals in W.A. Nos.1487 of 1998 and 24 of 2000 challenging the common order dated 01.09.1997 in W.P. Nos.7221 of 1996 and 484 of 1995 respectively. The Division Bench has dismissed the appeals by its judgment dated 14.09.1998 and 22.01.2000 respectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3033 of 2000 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (SLP) (C) No.311 of 1999 filed by the Government challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1487 of 1998 has disposed of the appeal by the judgment dated 28.04.2000 directing the District Collector, RR District, to complete the proceedings initiated by him by his order dated 03.01.1995 which was ratified by the Government by the order dated 24.01.1995 at an early date, in accordance with law. 5.4 It is stated that as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Collector, RR District, has passed orders in Proceedings No.E1/2233/2002 dated 10.05.2003 holding that assignees have sold the land in contravention of the conditions of the assignment. Further, the assigned lands have become urbanised land and no-longer sub-serve the purpose of cultivation and issued directions to concerned authorities to resume the lands in Survey Nos.393/1 to 393/20 admeasuring Acs.142-39 guntas in to the custody of the Government. 5.5 It is stated that aggrieved by the action of the District Collector, RR District, the alleged assignees started second round of litigation and, one Mr. M. Narsimha and others have filed another W.P. No.13165 of 2003 before the A.P. High Court. In 2005, the Additional Director General of Police, Greyhounds, filed a petition seeking to implead him as a respondent in the above writ petition. A.P. High Court has passed order in W.P. No.13165 of 2003 stating that the Government is always at liberty to cancel the order of assignment in accordance with law. Accordingly, the District Collector, RR District, vide Lr.No.LC1/4270/02 dated 29.05.2003 has allotted the subject land to Greyhounds and the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar has given advance possession to the then Inspector General of Police (IGP), Greyhounds, on 03.06.2003 under the cover of panchanama. Accordingly, the District Collector, RR District, vide Lr.No.LC1/4270/02 dated 29.05.2003 has allotted the subject land to Greyhounds and the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar has given advance possession to the then Inspector General of Police (IGP), Greyhounds, on 03.06.2003 under the cover of panchanama. As per the instructions of the District Collector, RR District, the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, vide proceedings No.B/289 /1999 dated 27.01.2007 has resumed the subject land into the custody of the Government and handed over the same to Greyhounds under the cover of panchanama dated 11.04.2007. 5.6 It is stated that one Mr. M. Jangaiah and forty five (45) others filed W.P. No.3634 of 2007 before the A.P. High Court and obtained interim suspension order against resumption proceedings. The order dated 05.02.2010 was passed in W.P. No.3634 of 2007 setting aside the proceedings No.B/289/1999 dated 27.01.2007. Aggrieved by the above order, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A. No.202 of 2010. The Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010 has suspended the operation of the order dated 05.02.2010 in W.P. No.3634 of 2007 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The appeal was posted for final hearing on 05.07.2010 and pending since long time. 5.7 It is stated that the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, has resumed the subject land into the custody of the Government and handed it over to the Greyhounds in 2007. Since then the subject land is in the possession of the Greyhounds. While the position stood thus, some anti-social elements are distributing money in the form of cheques to the alleged assignees and luring them to illegally alienate the Government land to the third parties without any valid title and even when the matter is sub-judice. Thus, there is clear violation of the order of the A.P. High Court and hence, requested to take necessary action. 5.8 It is stated that basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.70 of 2020 was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC by L.W.14 at Central Crime Station (CCS), Detective Department (DD), Hyderabad, and entrusted the case to L.W.15 for the purpose of investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) - L.W.15 recorded the statements of witnesses. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) - L.W.15 recorded the statements of witnesses. L.W.1 who is de facto complainant inter alia stated that L.Ws.3 and 4 have produced the copy of cheque issued by A6 Company - M/s. U & A Infra Projects vide A/c. bearing No.641260950 of Kotak Mahindra Bank to one of the persons for an amount of Rs.8,33,333/- dated 19.10.2019. Basing upon the bank statements of A6, Police have issued notice to A1 to A5. A3 and A4 in their reply stated that they have entered into Agreement of Sale with A6 Company represented by A1 and also received advance sale consideration and bound by the said agreements. 5.9 It is stated that in the course of investigation, A3 and A4 have produced Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) of A6 Company represented by A1 and A2. It is alleged that there is no valid ownership/title deed with A3 to A5 and others to claim right over the land of Greyhounds. Even without having any ownership/title deed documents with A3 to A5 and others, A6 Company represented by A1 and A2 have executed MoUs with A3 to A5 and others for purchasing the Greyhounds property; and A1 and A2 have given advance sale consideration to A3 to A5 and others. A3 and A5 and other accused failed to produce the relevant documents to claim their rights over the subject land. On perusing the copies of MoUs, it was found that they were allegedly prepared and executed on 21.09.2019. However, surprisingly the signatures on some of the MoUs were on 18.09.2020 i.e., after registration of FIR from which it can be inferred that MoUs are made as an afterthought on a white paper, which is not a usual practice, with a dishonest intention to grab the Government land without proper title. 5.10 It is stated that L.W.15 secured the presence of L.W.4, who stated that in the month of August, 2019, A1 and others approached him with one Mr. Rakesh, one of their villager and induced him that they will look after the Civil litigation with the Government and will fight on their behalf with regard to Civil and Criminal cases. L.W.4 stated that since the land is under litigation, he has neither shown the land to accused nor has given consent to him, as it amounts to contempt of the Court. L.W.4 stated that since the land is under litigation, he has neither shown the land to accused nor has given consent to him, as it amounts to contempt of the Court. Later, he came to know that some persons have executed MoUs with A6 Company and wrongfully received Rs.50,00,000/- as advance consideration and distributed the amount among their legal heirs by violating the assignment rules. During the course of investigation, it was found that A1 to A5 and A7 to A18 were involved in these illegal transactions and accordingly, they were added as accused to the Crime No.70 of 2020 vide SR No.981 of 2020. 5.11 It is stated that on transfer of L.W.15, L.W.16 took up further investigation of this case. L.W.16 issued notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to A2; the confessional statement of A2 was also recorded. L.W.16 secured the presence of L.Ws.7 and 8 and initiated proceedings under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. to conduct search in the house of A2 for relevant documents. L.Ws.5 and 6 corroborating with the statement of L.W.4 have stated that A1 to A5 with the help of A19 and others are trying to trespass in to the subject land allotted to Greyhounds. As per the bank statements of A3 and A5 received from L.Ws.9 to 11, it is clear that A3 to A5 have received amount pursuant to alleged MoU. Thus, prima facie crime is established against A3 and A5 and they were added as accused. Notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was issued to A3 to A5 by L.W.16 directing them to appear before him on 07.11.2020 at 11:00 A.M. 5.12 It is stated that the investigation revealed the fact that thirteen (13) MoUs were entered into by A6 - Company represented by its partners A1 and A2 on one side and other accused on the other. The same is evidence from the Clause 8 of the alleged MoU, wherein, A3 to A5 appointed A6 - Company represented by A1 as their GPA to pursue the litigation to its logical end. The same is evidence from the Clause 8 of the alleged MoU, wherein, A3 to A5 appointed A6 - Company represented by A1 as their GPA to pursue the litigation to its logical end. As per Clause 5 of the MoU, A6 Company agreed to enhance the sale consideration by 15% in the event of delay in clearing the litigation within three (3) years and as per Clause 7 of the alleged MoUs, A6 Company would register Ac.1-00 guntas of land in favour of first party and the same will be taken again by A6 Company for development. However, it is not revealed in the alleged MoUs whether the first parties are the family members or legal heirs of the original assignees from whom the subject land was resumed. The said first parties of 13 MoUs have also conspired with A6 Company represented by A1 and A2 with an intention to cheat the Government and wrongfully gain the valuable subject land. 5.13 It is stated that due to COVID-19, as the banks were not functioning with their full strength, the procurement of records was delayed. The Charge Sheet against the alleged beneficiaries representing as first parties of MoUs will be filed subsequently, after completion of investigation against them. It is alleged that in the investigation it was revealed that A6 - Company represented by A1 and A2 have entered into 13 MoUs; A2 signed on the cheques as joint account holder along with A1 which has been issued to alleged beneficiaries i.e., other accused. A19 - Mr. Gudem Rakesh S/o. Chandraiah has acted as a broker between the A6 Company and other accused. It is alleged that the above acts of accused entering into transaction in respect of the assigned land is also an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 (for short ‘Act 9 of 1977’). It is also alleged that as the subject land under 13 MoUs is an assigned land, which cannot be alienated, offence under Section 463 of IPC is also attracted which is punishable under Section 465 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 120-B of IPC, Section 447 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act 1977 against A1 to A19. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 120-B of IPC, Section 447 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act 1977 against A1 to A19. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against A20 to A68 in the above Calendar Case. 6. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. S. Nageshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. 7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. S. Nageshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that plain reading of the contents of the FIR No.70 of 2020 and charge sheet and offences mentioned therein, even if, the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken to be correct, on the face value the essential ingredients necessary for constituting the alleged offences are not made out. The allegations against the accused are absurd, false and incorrect. The dispute projected by the de facto complainant is ‘Civil in Nature’, instead of resorting to civil suit; the de facto complainant has falsely lodged complaint with a mala fide intention to settle the civil disputes. Assuming that petitioners have violated the order passed in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010, the remedy available to the State is to file contempt case. The petitioners have entered into MoU in respect of litigation properties. It was clearly mentioned in the MoUs that land purchased by the petitioners is subject to outcome of the pending litigation. There is no prohibition under any law, to enter MoU or Agreement of Sale, if property is entangled in litigation. The action of respondent authorities in registering the criminal case against the petitioners is gross abuse of process of law. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a quietus to the litigation in Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2523 of 2022) by the judgment dated 01.08.2023 and the matter was held in favour of the Government. Thus, it would be just and appropriate, in the interest of justice, to quash proceedings in C.C.No.12312 of 2020. 9. Thus, it would be just and appropriate, in the interest of justice, to quash proceedings in C.C.No.12312 of 2020. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation has been conducted by examining thirty witnesses and prima facie case is made out against accused and thus, charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court. In view of the specific allegations made against the petitioners - accused herein, the remedy available for them is to prove their innocence in the Trial Court. Petitioners tried to create fictitious documents and lured the assignees to enter into MoUs, in violation of the status quo order passed by A.P. High Court. Petitioners have paid sale consideration to the assignees - third parties and thereby tried to grab the valuable Government land which was allotted to Greyhounds. There are no merits in this criminal petition and liable to be dismissed. 10. On reading the contents of the charge sheet, it emerges that petitioner No.1 - A1 along with A2 who represented petitioner No.2 - A6 Company have entered into MoU with the assignees and paid part sale consideration and allegedly in violation of the status quo orders passed in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010. It is further stated that the petitioners have lured the assignees and tried to grab the valuable Government land. The petitioners - A1 and A6 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 120-B of IPC, Section 447 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act 9 of 1977. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.102 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335] has laid down guidelines, wherein the High Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings, which are as under: “ 102 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.102 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335] has laid down guidelines, wherein the High Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings, which are as under: “ 102 . 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 extraordinary 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 FIR 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 FIR 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) ….. (6) ….. (7) …..” 12. (5) ….. (6) ….. (7) …..” 12. In order to attract the offence under Section 406 of IPC for committing criminal breach of trust, accused should have been entrusted with a property or a valuable security and accused so entrusted should have misused or misappropriated the property and caused loss to the persons who have entrusted. In the present case, it is not the contention of the State - Police that the Government or the Police Department have entrusted the property to the accused persons and the accused have misused or misappropriated the same. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons have entered into MoUs with assignees and paid sale consideration when the matter was sub-judice and during the subsistence of the status quo order. Thus, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that there is entrustment of property by the de facto complainant in favour of accused and thus question of committing the offence of breach of trust does not arise. 13. The offence under Section 420 of IPC is attracted only when a person fraudulently and dishonestly induces another person to part with the property and thereby causing loss to such person. The act of accused persons in entering into MoUs with assignees and paying sale consideration cannot be treated as deceit or dishonest intention. It was not mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet that assignees were deprived of their right and subjected to any financial or property loss. Thus, the offence of cheating is not attracted. 14. In so far as, criminal conspiracy under Sections 120B is concerned, the same would be attracted only when two or more persons conspire to commit cognizable offence. The act of the accused in entering into MoUs in respect of the litigation property, during the subsistence of the status quo orders cannot by itself be treated as a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence. The writ petition filed by the assignees was allowed by the order dated 05.02.2010 and thereafter writ appeal was filed by the Government, wherein, status quo, order was passed by the Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010. It is clear from the contents of the MoU that A6 - Company represented by A1 and A2 have purchased the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. It is clear from the contents of the MoU that A6 - Company represented by A1 and A2 have purchased the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. Thus, it cannot be said that there is illegality or conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence. 15. The offence under Section 465 of IPC is attracted when a party creates false document. There is no allegation of creation of any false document. The only allegation is that MoUs have been entered into in respect of the disputed and litigation property. Thus, the offence of forgery is not attracted. 16. The offence under Section 447 of IPC is not attracted since it is the case of de facto complainant – L.W.1 that the land belonging to the Government has been purchased by the accused persons under MoUs. In fact, it is asserted that the Greyhounds is in possession of the subject property. Thus, offence under Section 447 of IPC is not attracted. 17. The prohibition sale of assigned lands is regulated under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. There is a procedure under Section 7 of the Act 9 of 1977 and cognizable of offence cannot be taken except with the sanction of the District Collector as provided under Sub Section (3) therein. There is no alienation of assigned land in the instant case and contravention of Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977. A1 and A2 who represent A6 - Company have entered into MoU to purchase the subject land during the pendency of the litigation and it would not attract Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977. In any event the Act 9 of 1977 is a self-contained statute and there is no compliance of Section 7(3) as stated above. Hence, prosecution of accused under Section 7 of the Act 9 of 1977 cannot be sustained. 18. Though, charge sheet also mentions Section 511 of IPC, no allegations are made in the entire charge sheet for attracting the said offence. The contention of the State is self-contradictory; while alleging that substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC etc. are attracted, at the same time, Section 511 of IPC is included. Prima facie, the contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the offence under Section 511 of IPC. 19. The contention of the State is self-contradictory; while alleging that substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC etc. are attracted, at the same time, Section 511 of IPC is included. Prima facie, the contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the offence under Section 511 of IPC. 19. In any case, the matter has been settled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of the learned Single Judge which was set aside by the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2523 of 2022) by the judgment dated 01.08.2023. Thus, whatever rights accused have claimed under the disputed MoUs has been nullified. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Deshpande, fairly conceded that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the accused persons neither have any claim nor can assert any rights over the land in occupation of Greyhounds and whatever rights they had under the MoU stood extinguished. In the opinion of this Court, if status quo order is violated, the Government has an effective alternate remedy of filing contempt case. But, there cannot be any criminality attached to such acts. The instant case fits into the parameters/guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), more particularly, paragraph No.102 (1) to (4) therein. As discussed supra, there is no prima facie case made out to prosecute the petitioners - accused for the offences mentioned in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 (arising out Crime No.70 of 2020). 20. In view of the above, Crl.P.Nos.5753 of 2020, 8 of 2021 and 461 of 2021 are allowed setting aside the proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 pending on the file of Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these criminal petitions stand closed.