Karnataka High Court
Sri Ganesh S Nayak vs Sri B Manjunath on 27 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5997 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5838 OF 2019
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5839 OF 2019
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5943 OF 2019
IN CRL.P NO. 5997/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANESH S NAYAK
S/O SRI. SUNDAR S. NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2-123(F)-4 KUMPLA,
SANTIKARU VILLAGE-575004,
MANGALURU TALUK
SOUTH KARNATAKA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH
NV SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
SRI B MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
303, 7TH CROSS,
HALAHALLI - 571 401
MANDYA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.298/2019
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
ARISING OUT OF THE P.C.R.NO.889/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MANDYA, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.499, 500, 501, 502 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC
AND PURSUANT THERETO AS DOCUMENT NO.5.
IN CRL.P NO. 5838/2019
BETWEEN:
DR SHIVA SHARANA SHETTY
S/O LATE K JAYARAMA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
NAMMA TV, SRI GANESHA,
KULAIE, MANGALORE-575011.
MANGALORE TALUK,
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM M., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.303,
7TH CROSS, HALAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.298/2019
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MANDYA,
ARISING OUT OF THE P.C.R.NO.889/2016 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT
DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
IN CRL.P NO. 5839/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH K PANDESHWAR,
S/O KUNCHI KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
JAYAKIRANA PUBLISHER,
BEJAAI HILLS, CIRCUIT HOUSE,
DOWN STREET, BATTAGUDDA,
BEJAI POST, MANGALORE-575004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM M., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.303,
7TH CROSS, HALAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.297/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT MANDYA WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF P.C.R.NO.796/2016
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S. 500, 501, 502 R/W SEC.34 OF
IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERTO MARKED
AND PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2.
IN CRL.P NO. 5943/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANESH S NAYAK
S/O SRI. SUNDAR S. NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
2-123(F)-4 KUMPLA,
SANTIKARU VILLAGE-575001,
MANGALURU TALUK
SOUTH KARNATAKA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
303, 7TH CROSS,
HALAHALLI - 571 401
MANDYA.
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
MANDYA POLICE STATION,
MANDYA - 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AT BENGALURU - 1
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.297/2019
ARISING OUT OF THE P.C.R.NO.796/2016 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S.500, 501, 502 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AS DOCUMENT NO.1.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
ORAL ORDER
Even though the matters are listed for admission, they are taken together for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.5997/2019 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5838/2019 are accused Nos.1 and 2, in C.C.No.298/2019 (arising out of PCR.No.889/2016), pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'); the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5943/2019 being accused No.1 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5839/2019 being accused No.2 in C.C.No.297/2019 (arising out of PCR.No.796/2016), pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with 34 of IPC, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned senior advocate for Sri Suyog Herele H., learned counsel for the petitioners in -6- NC: 2026:KHC:4838 CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019 HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019 Crl.P.Nos.5838/2019 and 5839/2019, Sri M. Chidananda Kedilaya, learned counsel for Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.5997/2019 and 5943/2019, Sri Ravi Shankar S.S., learned counsel for the respondent - complainant and Sri Rangaswamy R., learned HCGP for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5943/2019. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner-accused No.2 contended that accused No.2 in C.C.No.297/2019 is the owner of the newspaper by name 'Jayakirana'. Similarly in C.C.No.298/2019, petitioner - accused No.2 is arrayed as the owner of 'Namma TV'. The respondent has filed two different private complaints i.e. PCR Nos.796/2016 and 889/2016 before the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the petitioners herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. It is contended that the first complaint i.e. PCR.No.796/2016 was filed on 11.08.2016 and the second private complaint in PCR.No.889/2016 came to be filed on -7- NC: 2026:KHC:4838 CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019 HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019 17.09.2016. In both these complaints, similar allegations are made against the accused. The only difference is that, in PCR.No.889/2016 the complaint against 'Namma TV' represented by the petitioner as accused No.2 and in PCR No.796/2016 it is against accused No.2 as the owner of the newspaper by name 'Jayakirana'.
6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that, initially accused No.1-the petitioner in the present petition filed police complaint registered in Crime No.232/2015 against unknown persons. The said complaint was filed on 18.06.2015 and registered in Ullal Police Station. Even though it was filed against unknown persons, during investigation, the present respondent was apprehended. Similarly, the wife of accused No.1 and her father were also apprehended. After completing investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 387, 389, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
7. Learned senior advocate contended that filing of the complaint by accused No.1, apprehending the respondent herein by the Investigating Officer during investigation, filing of -8- NC: 2026:KHC:4838 CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019 HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019 the charge sheet and registration of the criminal case in C.C.No.510/2018 by taking cognizance for the above said offences are not in dispute. Therefore, it is a fact that the respondent is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 406, 389, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC along with accused Nos.1 and 3 who are none other than the wife and father-in-law of accused No.1.
8. The registration of the criminal case, investigation and apprehension of the respondent was reported in the newspaper by name 'Jayakirana' and the same was telecasted in 'Namma TV' news channel. Only on that ground, the private complaints came to be filed. Learned senior advocate contended that the offence alleged squarely falls under the first and fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC and therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out. The Trial Court, without taking into consideration any of these facts, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences and registered the criminal case. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
9. Learned senior advocate also contended that the publication is made in good faith. It is only to report the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:4838 CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019 HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019 registration of the criminal case, filing of the charge sheet, by the Investigating Officer. When all these facts i.e. filing of the first information, registration of the FIR, arrest of the respondent, filing of the charge sheet and registration of the criminal case in C.C.No.510/2018 are not in dispute, no offence whatsoever is made out.
10. Learned senior advocate contended that accused No.2 in C.C.No.297/2019 being the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5839/2019 is arrayed as the owner of the newspaper 'Jayakirana'. The Editor, Publisher or the Reporter are not arrayed as accused. Therefore, the complaint is hit by Section 7 of the Press and Registration of the Act, 1867. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in M. Narayanaswamy V/s G.K. Manjappayya1 connected matter to contend that, in the absence of any materials to show that the petitioner-accused No.2 being the owner has published the publication or that he was responsible for selecting the said article for publication or he was aware of the defamatory contents thereof, no offence whatsoever is made out.
1 CRL.P.NO.5103 OF 2014 D.D.17.01.2019
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
11. Learned senior advocate places reliance on the decision of this Court in R. Vasudevamurthy and Others V/s Dr.K.S. Nagapathi2, to contend that, when bald allegations are made in the complaint without specifically stating that the petitioner-accused No.2 is responsible for publication of the offending articles or news item and in the absence of the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the newspaper arraigning them as accused, the petitioner is entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings. He also contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the FIR registered in the said case, categorically held that, contents of such FIR if published will not amount to an offence of defamation, and FIR being a public document is intended for the public authorities to take cognizance of the complaint and therefore, if any report is published in the newspaper based on the said FIR, as it squarely falls under fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC.
12. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.N. Shanthkumar V/s Badriya Jumma Masjid Managing Committee 2 CRL.P.NO.186 OF 2017 D.D. 03.06.2019
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
Thurkalike3 connected matter in support of his contention
that, when admittedly there was a dispute between the parties concerned and when substantially true facts are published in the newspaper, the same will not amount to defamation. He refers to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Prakash Pandeswar V/s State of Karnataka and Another4 to contend that in the absence of any allegation of ill-will or where motive is not attributed to the petitioner-accused No.2 only on the basis of general and vague allegations in the complaint, the accused cannot be prosecuted.
13. Learned senior advocate also referred to the decision in Sanjay Upadhya Vs. Anand Dubey5 and contended that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the publication of news item or telecasting of any news in TV is protected under the fundamental rights as freedom of speech and expression is protected. Therefore, it cannot be said that any offence of defamation is committed. Placing reliance on these decisions, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that, when admittedly a criminal case was registered 3 CRL.P.NO.2673 OF 2019 D.D.29.09.2022 4 CRL.P.NO.4039 OF 2007 D.D. 29.07.2009 5 2024 (3) SCC 718
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
against accused No.2, which is now pending trial before the Trial Court, the respondent could not have filed the private complaint and the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence, without assigning any reasons and passing bald and mechanical order. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petitions by quashing the criminal proceedings.
14. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner accused No.2 contended that the respondent had filed Crl.P.No.62/2019 before this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the basis of the first information lodged by the petitioner accused No.1. The respondent had gone to the extent of contending that the complainant i.e. accused No.1 in the present case is of unsound mind. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2019. Under such circumstances, no offence could be made out against the petitioner-accused No.1 and hence prays for allowing the petition.
15. Learned counsel for accused No.1 who is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5997/2019, in addition to the arguments addressed by the learned senior advocate for petitioner-
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
accused No.2 contended that, there is absolutely no allegations made against accused No.1 and the allegations are made against accused No.2. Even then, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the offence without assigning any reason. Therefore, the order in question was passed mechanically, which is liable to be quashed.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 further contended that the Passport of the petitioner-accused No.1 had expired. As per the directions issued by this Court, the learned Magistrate has passed an order for renewal of the Passport for a period of one year, which is going to be expired on 26.08.2026. The present complaint is filed only to wreck vengeance, without making allegations.
17. Learned HCGP in Crl.P.No.5943/2019 contends that there are prima-facie materials against the petitioners who have committed the offence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and therefore they are not entitled for any relief in the present petitions.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent - complainant, opposing the petitions submitted that admittedly the petitioner
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
- accused No.2 has published a news item in Jayakirana Newspaper and also telecasted news item in Namma TV, making false and baseless allegations referring the respondent as having relationship with RSS and politicizing his career. When such colourful news items are published, it amounts to defamation and therefore the Trial Court rightly took cognizance of the offence. Therefore, there are no reasons to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petitions.
19. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow their respective petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
REASONS
20. The admitted facts of the case are that, petitioner -
accused No.1 had filed the complaint against unknown persons, which was registered in Crime No.232/2015 of Ullal Police Station on 18.06.2015. The informant had alleged that he had received a threatening call from unknown persons demanding ransom. Based on such first information, the FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, the respondent is arrayed as accused No.2 and he was apprehended. Similarly the wife of the petitioner - accused No.1 and her father were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3. They were also apprehended. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 387, 389, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
21. It is not in dispute that the respondent has approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.62/2019, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.232/2015. But the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2019. On perusal of the said order, it reveals that
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
a contention was taken before the Court that the complainant i.e. accused No.1 herein is of unsound mind. Referring to such contention taken by the respondent herein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that such allegations require a full-fledged trial and dismissed the petition recording that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence and a finding cannot be recorded regarding the mental condition of the complainant i.e. accused No.1 herein. Therefore, admittedly C.C.No.510/2018 is pending before the Trial Court against the respondent and two others who are none other than the wife and father-in-law of petitioner - accused No.1 herein. In that light of the matter, the publications now complained of were came to be published, one in the newspaper 'Jayakirana' and the other one telecasted in Namma TV.
22. In the complaint, the respondent has extracted the actual publication made by accused No.2 being the owner of Jayakirana newspaper, who filed Crl.P.No.5839/2019. In the said publication, there is reference to registration of the criminal case by accused No.1-Ganesh S. Nayak, arrest of respondent from Halahalli of Mandya, apprehension of the co-
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
accused, extortion of Rs.50,00,000/- from accused No.1 i.e. petitioner herein. It also refers to an allegation that the respondent herein belonging to a particular party and inducing the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1 in the present case. Of- course, few sensational allegations are made in the news report. Now the question arises as to whether it will fall under the category of the first exception to Section 499 of IPC relates to information of truth, which requires to be made or published and the fourth exception refers to publication of the reports of the proceedings of the Court. When such a publication is made, it will not amount to defamation. Fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC makes it clear that, if there is any publication which is substantially true report of the proceedings of the Court of justice, it will not amount to defamation.
23. In the present case, even though each and every allegation made in the report published in the newspaper or telecasted in Namma TV discloses at this stage that there is substantial truth in the report and the telecast, and when respondent did not deny that he is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.510/2018 which is pending for trial before the Trial
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
Court, he could not have alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 385, 507 of IPC, against the petitioners.
24. It is pertinent to note that, in the private complaint the entire allegation is made against accused No.2. Incidentally, there is reference to accused No.1 but no specific allegations are made against him for having committed the alleged offences. Thus, it is also one of the grounds to quash the criminal proceedings since there are no prima facie materials to constitute any of the offence as alleged.
25. As rightly contended by the learned senior advocate, the Editor, publisher and the reporter who are responsible for publishing the news item in the newspaper 'Jayakirana' and similarly telecasting the news in Namma TV are not arrayed as accused. There are no specific allegations against petitioner - accused No.2 that, it was he who is responsible for selecting news item or telecasting the said news in Namma TV. When the article in question published in the newspaper and telecasted in the TV content substantially true facts regarding the proceedings i.e. pending before the Trial Court, I do not find
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4838
CRL.P No. 5997 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5838 of 2019
CRL.P No. 5839 of 2019
HC-KAR AND CRL.P No. 5943 of 2019
any reason to permit the respondent to prosecute the
petitioners which is nothing but arm-twisting tactics adopted somehow to see that accused No.1 will back out from prosecuting the respondent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that initiation of the criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law.
26. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petitions are allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in
C.C.No.298/2019 (arising out of
PCR.No.889/2016) and in C.C.No.297/2019
(arising out of PCR.No.796/2016), pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed against the petitioners.
SD/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MKM: CT:VS