ORDER : 1. The petitioner/sole accused is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in Special C.No.1029 of 2024 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore, arising out of crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short). 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2 nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused. The complainant and the accused met in January 2022 when the petitioner was undergoing coaching for the UPSC examination and was stationed at Delhi. The complainant is said to be acquainted with the petitioner’s sister. The complainant was also pursuing her UPSC examination and the averment in the petition is that, in the garb of exchange of notes for study to the UPSC examination, the petitioner and the complainant get in touch with each other with exchange of messages. On 12-07-2023, the petitioner is said to have met the complainant in Delhi, after which the complainant also moves to the same coaching class and further with the assistance of the petitioner gets a paying guest accommodation. The friendship between the two blossomed into relationship and it is the case of the petitioner that the two got married, but the case of the complainant is otherwise. However, the fact remains that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant turned irrevocably sore. It is then the complainant registers a complaint before the Chandra Layout Police Station on 19-10-2023 making several allegations against the petitioner that, on the promise of marriage the petitioner had recorded all private videos of the complainant and had begun to blackmail that he would broadcast the same in all social media. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 for several offences of the IPC, Information Technology Act and in the light of the fact that the complainant is belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Act was also invoked. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet dropping certain provisions under the Act and adding a few on several other offences. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet dropping certain provisions under the Act and adding a few on several other offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the present petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Smt Monica Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.B. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent had consensual physical relationship since July 2023 after their first meeting in July, up to which point in time they were still on WhatsApp. When the relationship turned sore, petitioner travels to Prayagraj and at that time, the 2 nd respondent registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and on 02-11-2023 tenders a statement before the Police making allegations of rape. The Police file a requisition to include the offence of commission of rape on promise of marriage. Talks of settlement are initiated by the members of the families of both the parties and on 10-11-2023 the marriage is said to be registered. On 14-12-2023 the complainant registers another crime against all the family members that she was forced at the marriage Registrar’s office to give her consent to marriage. This becomes a crime at Prayaraj in Crime No.600 of 2023 for several offences. The Allahabad High Court has stayed all further proceedings in the crime registered at Prayagraj. The learned counsel would submit that the entire present proceedings right from the complaint till filing of the charge sheet is gross abuse of the process of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/complainant would vehemently contend taking this Court through elaborate statement of objections and certain documents, photographs all to buttress his submission that all the offences are committed by the petitioner and in fact the offences under Section 376 and 420 of the IPC ought to have been included while filing the charge sheet, but they have been dropped. He would submit that the Police have filed a charge sheet and the trial must be permitted to go on with liberty to the concerned Court to add offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC also and seeks dismissal of the subject petition. 6. He would submit that the Police have filed a charge sheet and the trial must be permitted to go on with liberty to the concerned Court to add offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC also and seeks dismissal of the subject petition. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also take this Court through the charge sheet and submit that the issue between the two revolves round maze of facts. The allegations in the charge sheet are quite vivid for the offences that are laid. He would also seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record or as narrated in the petition. The factum of relationship between the two and blossoming of the relationship between the accused and the complainant is again a matter of record. Several narrations in the complaint being frivolous or otherwise are narrated in the petition. Since the entire issue has now triggered from registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “Date: 18-10-2023 To The Inspector, Chandra Layout Police Station, Chandra Layout, Bangalore. Sub: Regarding of private videos and photos by assuring to marry and also threatening to release all the contents on internet, life threat following me in Chandra Layout and Anubhavanagar. Respected Sir, With reference to the above-mentioned subject, person by name Abhishek Mishra originally resident of Allahabad (U.P.) had promised me of marriage and had recorded my private videos and clicked many of my private pics of recently he has shifted from Delhi to Bangalore and unknowingly started to follow me and some of my friends, in one such incident he followed a friend of mine on 15 th of October at around 2.15 pm. At 60 feet road in Chandra Layout to his room and he started to show my private content to him, in response to which with the highly disturbed mind my friend asked him to not show things and he did not stopped, my friend in order to make him stop told that do not do these things in front of me and in order to trap him to delete all things and inform police, he told that I have married her so do not do this and delete all videos and photos. To trap him he said that I need a copy of all this you meet me again. My friend wanted to inform Police by this time and get him arrested but it so happened that after that meet he came to meet my friend the other day (16-10-2023) around 7.00 p.m. ETA Mall Binnypet, he gave photos of us and certain my friends stuffs and while leaving he told he would come again with the videos and photos in a pen drive, that evening my friend came to me and revealed all the conversation he had with Abhishek Mishra, who I called him and asked him where he is presently he said that he is in Allahabad when I told him that why are you lying I got to know you are in Bangalore and following my friends and show all private stuff with my friends and his friends also. He immediately said unparliamently words to me like, Rande, Madarchod etc. Thinking that I am extremely disturbed and knowing that facts that he is having so much of my private things and showing it among his friends he is very disturbing to me. Kindly take stringent action against him as he did all this on the promise of getting married and on 16 th of October he denied that, he will not marry me. I extremely scared as he has so many private stuffs and that has spoiled my life completely and disturbed my mental peace. I request your good self to do the needful by getting him punished. I extremely scared as he has so many private stuffs and that has spoiled my life completely and disturbed my mental peace. I request your good self to do the needful by getting him punished. Hereby attaching his detail: Name: Abhishek Mishra Contact: 8090332889/9794302463 Thanking you, Sd/- Pinki Sharma,  Age 29 Contact: 84486444 Father name: Sohanlal Sharma Add: 15 th 3 rd Floor, 4 th Cross.” The complaint narrates several horrendous acts on the part of the petitioner and those acts are alleged to be on promise of marriage. The accused and the complainant having consensual sexual relationship is a matter of record. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 354C, 354D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.1029 of 2024. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 is as follows: The summary of charge sheet contains vivid details of what the allegations are. Crime for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC were also directed to be investigated into. While dropping those crimes, several offences under the Act have been dropped. 9. What is alleged now pursuant to filing of the charge sheet is, for the following offences: “Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC; Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.” (Emphasis added) The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC. These sections read as under: “354-C. Voyeurism.—Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. Explanation 2.—Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section. 354-D. Stalking.—(1) Any man who— ( i ) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; ( ii ) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that— (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified. (2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” … … … 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace .—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. … … … 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation .—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc .— and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. … … … 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman .—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 354-C deals with voyeurism. The allegation against a man who watches or captures image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. Section 354-D deals with stalking. The allegation against a man who watches or captures image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits offence of stalking. The other offences are Section 504 and 506 of the IPC viz., breach of peace and criminal intimidation and finally the IPC offences end with Section 509. Section 509 deals with gesture and intending to insult modesty of a woman. 10. Under the Information Technology Act what is alleged is Section 66E. Section 66E reads as follows: “66-E. Punishment for violation of privacy.— Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section— (a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (b) “capture” with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means; (c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast; (d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public; (e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that— (i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or (ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.” (Emphasis supplied) Whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of private area of a person without his or her consent is said to be committing the offence under Section 66E. Several descriptions are found with regard to capturing of images or making video. Hence, the petitioner will have to be tried for the aforesaid offence. 11. The other offence is the one punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Several descriptions are found with regard to capturing of images or making video. Hence, the petitioner will have to be tried for the aforesaid offence. 11. The other offence is the one punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as follows:- “ 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - … … … (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - … … … (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.” Any person who commits an offence against the person or property knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. 12. If the complaint and the summary of charge sheet are considered on the bedrock of the offences alleged, what would unmistakably emerge is, a few of the offences are loosely laid against the petitioner and a few are appropriately. Insofar as the allegation of voyeurism as obtaining under Section 354C is concerned, the contents of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly meet the offence of voyeurism. The petitioner is alleged to have shot several videos of intimate moments or even videos of the parts of the body of the complainant. If this be the allegation and it being sustained while filing the charge sheet, it would undoubtedly meet the allegation of voyeurism. This Court, in the case of Veerabhadra Swamy S. Vs. State of Karnataka , [Crl. Pet. No. 2396 of 2024 decided on 10.06.2024] , has held as follows: “11. If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, it would prima facie lead to the ingredients of Section 354C of IPC. Section 354C of IPC reads as follows: “ 354C. State of Karnataka , [Crl. Pet. No. 2396 of 2024 decided on 10.06.2024] , has held as follows: “11. If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, it would prima facie lead to the ingredients of Section 354C of IPC. Section 354C of IPC reads as follows: “ 354C. Voyeurism .—Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 354C of IPC deals with Voyeurism. Voyeurism has certain ingredients. Any man who watches, captures the images of a woman engaging in a private act would be committing an offence of voyeurism. Explanation would read, the private act to be including an act of watching carried out in a place, where it would reasonably expected to provide privacy, which reads as follows: “ Explanation 1.- For the purpose of this section. “Private Act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has indulged in placing a mobile phone in or inside or above the electric switch board to record the videos or the pictures of the complainant. The Police have filed the charge sheet after investigation. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to contend that the mobile phone seized cannot even take pictures or record videos. It is a matter of evidence, as in the considered view of the Court Section 354C of IPC, which has come into force by way of an amendment in the year 2013, as a purpose for introduction of the said provision. It is a matter of evidence, as in the considered view of the Court Section 354C of IPC, which has come into force by way of an amendment in the year 2013, as a purpose for introduction of the said provision. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonu vs. State, through SHO, 2023 SCC Online Del 1955 , considering the purport of Section 354C of IPC has held as follows: “…. … …. SECTION 354C OF IPC. VOYEURISM : ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 10. Voyeurism has been introduced as a sex crime against women in India by way of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Since the appellant has been convicted and sentenced inter alia under Section 354C of IPC, it would be appurtenant to refer to the said provision, which is reproduced as under: “ 354C. Voyeurism. -Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.-For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear ; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. Explanation 2.-Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Explanation 1 to Section 354C clarifies the meaning of ‘private act’. Explanation 2.-Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Explanation 1 to Section 354C clarifies the meaning of ‘private act’. When the definition of voyeurism is read alongwith the explanation, it would include within its ambit, an act of watching carried out by the perpetrator in a place used by a woman/victim where she is engaged in a ‘private act’ which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected by her to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear, or where she is using a lavatory, or where she is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public, and she has reasonable expectation that she would not be observed by the perpetrator or any other person at behest of the perpetrator; or where she consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant had two-fold arguments, firstly that it is an admitted fact that the appellant stays in the jhuggi next to the jhuggi of the victim. Since the bathroom was situated in the common area outside their jhuggies, he could not have been convicted for voyeurism as he was merely standing outside his house which was his right. Secondly, it was argued that in the present case, the bathroom used by the victim being situated at a common public place cannot be termed as a private area but a public place and thus the act of bathing at such ‘public place’ cannot be held to be a ‘private act’. He argues that in case, this Court holds to the contrary, in that case, several thousands of persons can be prosecuted merely for their presence at public places such as water parks, swimming pools, lakes, ponds or even while taking bath in rivers at religious places. 13. This Court, however, does not agree with the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant as the same are contrary to law and cannot be interpreted in the way he argues. (i) Private Act v. Public Act 14. 13. This Court, however, does not agree with the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant as the same are contrary to law and cannot be interpreted in the way he argues. (i) Private Act v. Public Act 14. As regards the first argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellant, it is to be noted that the bathroom in question was situated in an open area, but it was not an open public place as suggested by learned counsel for appellant. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the bathroom had small walls and a curtain used to be drawn at the time of taking bath by the victim. The contention that the act of taking bath cannot be considered a ‘private act’ as it was being done in a public place is not only meritless but also absurd. Taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a ‘private act’ as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom. 15. In the present case, though, it is true that the bathroom was constructed outside the jhuggi of the victim at a public place, but it constituted of a covered four walled structure being used as a bathroom. The entrance of the bathroom used to be covered with a curtain at the time of taking bath, therefore, it cannot be held that the bathroom was a open public place. Similarly, there can be no doubt that the woman taking bath therein will be considered to be engaged in a ‘private act’ of taking bath and having reasonable expectation of not being seen by anyone. 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of taking bath by the victim in the present case, instead of being a ‘private act’ became a ‘public act’ is totally meritless. Merely because a structure which is being used as bathroom by a woman does not have a door but only a curtain and temporary walls and it is situated outside her house does not make it a public place and the contention that the act of taking bath by the victim became a ‘public act’ instead of being a ‘private act’ for the said reason has to be outrightly rejected. It will also amount to holding that in case a woman takes bath in the bathroom inside her house, it remains a ‘private act’ and if she takes bath in a covered bathroom which is outside her house, will become a ‘public act’, which will be irrational. This Court therefore holds that the bathroom in question in this case was not a public place and the act of taking bath therein was a ‘private act’.” 13. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the bedrock of what voyeurism is, it would become matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean, not only for offence under Section 354C of IPC but even for other offences so alleged. (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the petitioner will have to be tried for the offence under Section 354C. 13. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner. 14. The offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC are however be sustainable, as the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly make out those offences. Any further elaboration of the statements recorded and their consideration in the subject petition would prejudice further proceedings before the concerned Court against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court exercise restraint in going deep into those statements. 15. The other offence is under the Act. What is alleged is Section 3(2)(v). Whoever commits offence against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is to be incurring the wrath of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. As referred to in the section, it is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner has committed certain offences against the complainant. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner did not know that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the said offence also is to be sustained. 16. As referred to in the section, it is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner has committed certain offences against the complainant. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner did not know that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the said offence also is to be sustained. 16. A perusal at the statement, summary of the charge sheet and the submissions so made, both by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, are a maze of facts, which would amaze this Court to exercise its jurisdiction and obliterate entire proceedings in Special C.C.No.1029 of 2024. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2021) 9 SCC 35 , wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672 after considering the decisions of this Court in [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94, State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702 and XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173, referred to hereinabove. 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court directs that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should not entertain, interdict or quash the proceedings if the issue would revolve round seriously disputed questions of fact. 17. The case at hand, as observed hereinabove, except the offence of stalking, revolves round seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require further proceedings before the concerned Court. Therefore, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to obliterate the proceedings qua all offences except the offence under Section 354D – stalking, as permitting further trial qua the said offence would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER : (i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Proceedings in Special C.C.No.1029 of 2024 stand quashed only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354D of the IPC. (iii) Criminal Petition is dismissed qua all other offences. (iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against him before the concerned Court or any other fora. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed.