Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra patel v. State of Grrjaratr

Heard ,ylr.T.Nirarrjan Reddy, learned Senior (lounsel representlng Mr.R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr.palle Nageswara Rao, learned pubiic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 state. 2. This Crirninal petition is fited under Sectio n _ 4g2 of the Code of Crimina-l procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings ir-r Crime No.224 of 2O2O on the file of Nersingi Police Station

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused Nr.1 in the said case. Ihe offences alleged against him are rrnder Sections 188, 287, l}g,2O7 and 120_8 of the Indiar .pena] Code, 1860 (fo: short lpCJ and Section Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. I 1(A) read with

4. perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint Iodged by iespo;rdent No.2, police, Narsingi police Station. 2 have registered the aJoresaid crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. Thereafter, they have arrested the petitioner in the said crime on 05.03'2020' They have also added section of law from Section 188 of IPC to Sections 287,1O9, 115,201 and 12OB of IPC and Section 11(A) read with Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 336 of IPC.

5. In the complaint dated O2.O3.2O2O, respondent No'2 stated that on 01.03.2020 at about O3.3O P.M', while he along with his colleague Mr.J.Kumar, ARPC-8O88 while attending patrolling duty near Swaroop Cricket Stadium situated at Miyakhana Ghadda, Narsingi, they have observed coverage of surround.ing places with the help of Drone Camera. Therefore, he requested the police to take action. On receipt of the said complaint, police have registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2O2O for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC . ....., r.i J

6. Durin6l the course of investigation, the Investigating Oflicer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW. 1, the said Mr.J.Kumar as LW.2 (eye_rvitness), Mr.Vamshi Krishna, Software Engineer ald Mr.Mahesh Yadav, Studr:nt as LWs.3 and 4 (eye-witnesses). L\A/s.S and 6 are palch vvitnesses of the scene of offence, LWs.7 and g are panch w.tnesses for confession and seizure of rnaterial objects. LW.!) is Sub-Inspector of police, who assis;ted the Investigat.ing Officer. LW. 1O is Sub_Inspector of police, Narsingi Police Station, who issued FIR. LW. 1l .s Sub- Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Offic:er and arrested the petitioner. 7 . In the remand case diar5r, it is stated th at the petitioner,/ 26c:used No.l is a Member of parliamerLt from Congress Party ald accused No.2 is his brother. It is alleged that the petitioner and his brother insrructed accused No.3 to bring car ald another person to capture the video of surrounding places situated at Mivakhan Ghadda, uhich was surrounded by the properties belong to the private I)ersons. Thus, accused No.3 along with I' accused No.8 met accused No.7 (Drone Operator) in the office of accused No.l, and accused No.2, explained him, bring him to Kokapet and met with accused No'6' Mr.Mungi Jaipal Reddy and accused No.6 shared the location with him. Later, accused Nos.3, 7, 8, 9 along with another person rushed to the Swaroop Cricket Stadium and fly the Drone Camera in air and started capturing video, accordingly, the petitioner and other accused moved the drone towards private properties.

8. It is further alleged that all the accused including the petitioner, hatched a plan to capture videos of farm house belongs to private persons to publish the videos in social media damaging their privacy. The petitioner and other accused have taken those images and displayed the same before public and media, thereby, violated the personal safety of the private persons and conducted the said operation illegally without any prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused committed the aforesaid offences' t,, 5

9. I\4r.T. \'iranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearirlg 1br the petitioner would contend that the contents of the said complaint and the statemenr_s of the aforesajcl u.itnesses lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Without considering the said as;pects, the Investigating Officer ad<led the aforesaid ofl'ences including Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 336 of IF,C. contents of the complaint and statements of the aforesaid The , witnesses re<;orded under Section 161 of Cr.p.C. lack the ingredients c,f the a_foresaid offences. The same it.e not maintainable He has placed reliance on the princi ple 1aid down b1' the llon'ble Apex Court in the following cas,:s: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra patel v. State of Grrjaratr; i) ir) Iqhal @ Bala v. State of Uttar pradesh2; i1i) Dirresh Gupta v. State of Uttar pradeshs; and it ) State of Jharkhand v. Nishkant Dubbeya. 'tzotel Io scc s+z ' (2023) 8 SCC 734 I2024 4 SCC Online sc 1,1 Manu/SC/0092 '202 5 t 6

10. Whereas, Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor referring to the counter admitted that there is no notification issued in terms of the Aircraft Act' 1934' particularly, with regard to the subject area as to whether green zones. The it falls under Yellow, orange or Investigating Ofhcer considered the statements of the the pima facie aforesaid witnesses, on coming to conclusion that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences, arrested him and remalded him on 05'03'2020' Investigation is pending, scuttling the same at this stage is impermissible. It is relevant to refer to Sections - 188, 287, lO9' ll5' 11. 2OI, I2OB and 336 of IPC and the sarne are extracted hereunder:. "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain or to take certain order with from a certain act, his possession or under his certain ProPerty in management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such lidobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction' 7 arnovitnce or injury, or risk of obstmction, annoyan ce or inj rry, to any person lawfully employed, tre punished with simple imprisonment for a term whir:h mzry e:<tend to one month or with fine which m:ry extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause dangr:r to hurr an life, health or safety, or causes or tends l.o cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with impriscnment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or \Mith fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. hplanatioE.-It is not necessary that th e offendel should intend to produce harm, or conteml:late his disobedience as hkely to produc,: harm. 11 is sufhcient that he lcrows of the order whicir he rlisotreys, and that his disobedience produces, or i:; likely to produce, harm. Ilhstration An order is promulgated by a publi, sen ant Lawfully empowered to promulgate such order drrectrnp; that a religious procession shall not pass down. a r:ertain skeet. A knowingly disobeys the order, and theleby causes danger of riot. A has committec the offence defrned in this section."

287. Negligent coaduct with respect to machinery.__ Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likelv to cause hurt or injury to any other person,or knovringly. or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as 8 is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human liie from such machinery, shall be punished with irnprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six monttrs, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 1O9. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in cousequence and where no exPress provision is made for its purishment.- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for tJle offence. Enplaaation.- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is comrnitted in consequence of t-lle instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. Illustratioas: --- (a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some lavour in the exercise of B's oflicial functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defrned in section 161. (b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, comrnits that oIfence. A is guilty of abettrng that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B. (c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursualce of the conspiracy, procures the poison ald delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z- B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison 9 to Z ta A's absence and ttrereby causes Z,s cleat-h. Ht,re B is 6piltv of murder. A is grilty of abetting that of1'enr:r by conspiracy, and is liabte to the punishment for murder. I15. Abetment of offence punishable w.ith death or imprisonment for life-if olferxce not committed.._ Whoevt:r abets the commission of al offenL:e punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of t]:e abetment, and no express provision is made by thr s Code Ior the punishment of such abetment, be punishr:d with imprisonment of either description fr:r a term which may extend to seven years, ald shafl also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done ir-r collseqarence.- and if any act for which the abettor i s liable I consequence of tfre abetment, ald which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liabl,: to imprisonment of either description for ,.r terrn u'lLich may extend to fourteen years, ald shal t also be ]iable to frne. Ilftrstration: A instigates B to murder Z. Thl offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, ht would have been subject to the punishment of deattr or i.mprisonment for life. Therefore A is hable tr, imprisor ment for a term which may extend to sever: years and a_lso to a fine; a_nd if arry hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to flne. l0 2O1. Causing disappearauce of evidence of offeace' or giving false itformation to screen offender.- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that olfence to disappear' with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives arry information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, arrd shall also be fiable to frne; if punishable with imprisonment for life'- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or witJr imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a Lerm which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to hne; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment - and 'if the offence is punishable witl imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to- one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with file, or with both. Illustration: A, knowing that B has tntrdered' Z' assists B to hide tJle body with the intention of F .., l 1l screening B from punishment. A is liable r_o impris('nment of either description for seven year s, ern 1 also to fine. 12O8. Punishment of crimiral conspiracy._ (t) Wt:oe\.€ r is a party to a crirninal conspiracy to commit an offe -rce punishable with death, imprisonment fr:r life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upurzu'ds, shall, where no express provision is made in tlis rlode for tJre punishment of such a conspiracr., be punished in the same manner as if he harl abetteri such oflence. (2)Whoever is a party to a crirninal conspiracy othe r than a criminal conspiracy to comrnit an offencr: purLishable as aforesaid shall be punished witJ r imprisortment of either description for a term no: exceedirLg six monttrs, or with fine or with both_

336. Ar:t endangering life or personal safety ot: others.--Whoever does any act so rashiy oi negliger-rt1y as to endanger human life or the personal safery ol others, shall be punished with imprisonmerrr of elther description for a term which may extend tc three monttrs, or with fine which may extend to tr,"-c hundred ald fift5r rupees, or with both." I2 In the 1i6;ht of the aforesaid submissions, it is rr:leveurt to note that in Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, West l2 Crodavari Districts relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor6 and the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, more particularly, parameter No.6, which says that where ttrere is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings atd/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing effrcacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. in exercise of its power under Section - 482 of Cr'P.C. It further held that the proceedings sha1l not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint frled by

5. Criminat Petition No.15248 of2016, decided on 26' 10 2016 6. C.imhal Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 7. 1te9z; supp. I SCC 335 ,1 13 V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 19)5 (1) (a) of Cr.P.Cr.

13. As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer remancled the petitioner/accused No.1 basing on the statemen.ts c,f the aforesaid witnesses, material serzed and the confessicnal statements of the co-accused.

14. Perus:l of record would a,lso reveal ttLat . Investigating Officer has recorded the statemr:nts of T.MallesLr, Dugginaboyina Rajasekhar, pichakuntta Ashok and Golira Dinesh Singh, residents of the said area. Sri T.Mallesh, ir-r his statement stated that on O2.O3.2O2O the petitioner conducted the press conference, .vvherein Sri Mangi .laipal Reddy and Sri Gangrdi Om prakash Reddy have also pa-ticipated. It is also published in ner.r,s;papers ald electroni: media that the police have already arrested the petitioner/ accused No.1.

15. Sri Dugginaboyina Rajasekhar, Sri pichakuntla Ashok and Sri Golia Dinesh Singh, have also spokerr in the very same lint:s. \- 14

16. The Investigating Ofhcer also relied on the statement of Sri Marri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, President of Upparpally Village, who, stated that Sri Poreddy Praveen Paul Reddy and Sri Vijay Paul Reddy, the residents of his village, came to his shop and asked his White Colour Breeza Maruthi Car bearing No.TS-O7GH-4555. On enquiry, they informed him that they have some work and they requested him to give his car. On 04.03.2020, police have seized his cat and on O2.O3.2O2O the petitioner/accused No.1 conducted press meet at Vattinagulapali Village. The said pictures belongs to Farm House of Sri Kalvakuntala Taraka Ramarao and other surrounding area. The Investigating Officer altered the section of law. 17 . In the light of the same, it is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and the same is extracted hereunder: u7. Molesting a Person to prejudice emplo5rmeot or business.-( 1) Whoever- l5 (rr) with intent to cause any person to abstidn fi-om doing or to do any act which such person hari a righl to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or Llses violencc to or rntimidates such person or any memt:er of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employcd person resides or works or carries ,:rn brrsinr:ss or happens to be, or persistently follo.r,,us hjm Irom place to place, or interferes with a-r.Ly ploperty owned or used by him or deprives him of rtr hinders him in the use thereof, or (b) loiters or does any similar act at or near tlle pl,ece rvhere a person carries on business, in such a rr.'zry arrd with intent that aly person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with hn,: rvhich may extend to five hundred rupees, or with trorh. Explanation.-Encouragement of indigenour; industries or advocacy of temperarrce, without tl_re commtssion of any of the acts prohibited by this section is not an offence undei this section. (2) No Court shall take cognizalce of an offencr, punishe.ble under this section except upon a report in uriting of facts which constitute such offence made b-y a pc,lice-officer not below the rarlk of o{ficer in charge cfa police- station. " 16 (..

18. As per Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Section upon a report in writing of facts which constitute by police officer not below the rank of officer in-charge of the police station.

19. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a Constable. Therefore, on his complaint, the Investigating Officer can't alter the Section of law to that of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.

20. It is also relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.92, Home (Specia1) Department, dated 28.12.2019 , constituting committee for identihcation of the State critical / strategically important installations .in to be retained / included in the Digisky Platform'in the Red and Yellow Zones at State [,evel. The Government has constituted the committee and the said committee has submitted a report dated 17.O2.2O2O to the Director (VS), IS-II Division, VIP Security Unit, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi, along with Red and Yellow zones t7 categorization of vital/ criticai installations / projects in Telangana. T'he subject propert5r was not notified so far. 2I. It is a-lso relevant to note that the Central Governmenl. has framed the Drone Rules, 202 1, which came into force from the year 2O2l and, the alleged offence took place in the year 2020. Therefore, the said rtrles will have prosper:tive effect but not retrospective effect. They have no application to the facts ofthe present case.

22. Vider pr.oceedings dated Ol.l2.2}lg, the f)irector General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi, has issued guidelines/rerluirements for operation of Civil Rr,,motely Piloted A.ircraft System (RPAS). The sarne ir:.cludes controlled Airspace i.e., Danger Area,, prohibited Arr:a and Restrictecl Area. Clause 1g of the said guidelines / requirements deals with the Enforcement Action arrd the same is reievant, it is extracted: " 18. Enforcement Action:_ 18. t In case of violation of provisions of this CAR/approved operating conditions the UIN/UAOF, issued t,y DGCA shall be suspended/cancelled. 18 (

18.2 Breach of compliance to any of the requirements and fa-lsilication of records/documents shall attract penal action including imposition of penalties as per applicable IPCs (such as 287,336, 337, 338 or aly relevant section of IPC).

18.3 Necessary action shall be taken as per relevant sections of the Aircraft Act, 1934 /the Aircraft Rules, 1937 or any statutory provisions."

23. Referring to the same, Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that the Investigating Ofhcer did not comply with the same. Therefore, police can't add Section 336 of IPC.

24. It is relevant to note that basing on the confessional statements of co-accused, police can't prosecute the petitioner/accused No.l. The said principle was also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (cited supra).

25. As per the categorical findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nishkant Dubbey (cited supra), on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, police can't register the aforesaid offence and can't add Section 336 of IPC. l9

26. In Dinesh Gupta (cited supra), the Ape;: Court considered the following aspects: "tInsc rupulous litigants should not be allowed to 1;o scot-fiee. They should be put to strict terms ar.Ld conditions including costs. It is time to check r.l.i1.h firnn e ss such litigation initiated and laced r,r.i1h concezLlment, falsehood, altd forum hunting. Er.en State actions or conduct of government serwanl_s being party to such malicious litigation should 1:,e seriour;ly reprimanded. In the instant case, we find inltiaticn of criminal proceedings before a forurn whicb had no territorial jurisdiction by submitting jncorrect facts and giving frivolous reasons to entertain such complaints. A closer look at th e lesponlent's actions reveals more thal just an inzippropriate use of jurisdiction. The core issue r:f the dir;pute, which involves hnalcial transaction I anC ag-eements, clearly places it in the realm of civil an,l commercial law. Yet, the respondent chose to pursue criminal charges in a quest lo abus,: the crininal justice system witll a motive to seel,: personrLl vengeance rather than seeking true justice This unnecessary turning of a civil matter into ir. crirnina[ case not only overburdens the crimina] justice system but also violates the principles o1. fairness and right conduct in legal matters. The apparer,t misuse of criminal proceedings in this case. not onll. damages trust in our legal system but alsc sets a h armful precedent if not addressed.,, (, On examination of facts therein, the Apex Court imposed an amount of Rs.25,OO ,OOO /- towards costs on the complainant.

27. In lqbal @ Bala (cited supral, paragraph No'1l 1S relevant and the same is extracted below: "11. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines- The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall cfcumstances leading to the initiative / registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation' Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of privaLe or personal grudge as alleged."

28. As discussed supra, the contents of the complaint and the statements of the a-foresaid witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Admittedly, the subject property is not notified in 2t terms of G.C).Ms.No.92, Home (Special) Department, dated

28.72.2019

29. As on r-he date of the alleged incident, the pt:titioner herein rvas Member of Parliarnent from M,llkajgiri Parliament Constituency. It is the specilic contention of the petitioner he.:ein is that the then Minister, Informal.ion and Technologr, for the State of Telangana, implicated the petition er in alse case.

30. In Bhajan Lal (cited supra), the Court cautionecl that power of quashing should be exercised very. sparinglly it ith circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of u.hich is rsought, Court can.not embark upon an enquiry as to the re..iability or genuinener;s or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or irr tt.e complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parametr:rs for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.p.C., which are as un rler 22 (' "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if t1ley 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 materia,ls, if aly, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cogrrizable offence, justifying an investigation by police oflicers under Section 156(1) ofthe Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of t]le 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 comrnission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cogrizable olfence but,constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offrcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently irnprobable on tJle basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suflicient ground for proceeding against the accused. 23 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in ary of the provisions of the Code or the Act concenred (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of t1-e proceeclings and/or where there is a specifi<: provisic,n in the Code or Act concerned, providrlg efhcacious redress for tJ:e grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a crimina_l proceeding is manifestly att€:nde,1 w.ith mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior mot.ive lbr wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge " I t The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. I I

31. In the light of the above discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, continuat ion of proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2O2O on the file of Narsingi Police Station. Cyberabad, against the petitioner/ ar:cused No.1 is arr al)use of process of law and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner 24 o in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

32. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No-224 of 2O2O on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused No.1 alone' As a sequel thereto, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed' SD/- N. SR ARI DEPUTY REGI TRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The XVI Additional Metropolitan [\rlagistrate Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad District' 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court forlhe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to Mr. R. Giri Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Gopies DL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 ORAL ORDER CRLP.No.1829 of 2O20 04 il ;:i,: ,'.) t * Dr sP,1l '- ' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION W