Karnataka High Court
M/S S P M Granites Exports Pvt Ltd vs Mr. T. Manoharan on 14 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2393
WP No. 14872 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 14872 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S S P M GRANITES EXPORTS PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M. BABANNA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.129, 7TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041.
2. MR. M. BABANNA
S/O LATE P. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD
7TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR
BTM 2ND STAGE, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.
3. MRS. LAKSHMI BABANNA
Digitally signed W/O M BABANNA
by PRASHANTH
NV AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Location: High DIRECTOR, M/S PM GRANITES
Court of EXPORTS P LTD., RESIDING AT
Karnataka
NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD
7TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR
BTM 2ND STAGE, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.
4. MR. HEMACHANDRA BABU,
S/O M BABANNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
DIRECTOR, M/S PM GRANITES
EXPORTS P LTD., RESIDING AT
NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS
KUVEMPU NAGAR, BTM 2ND STAGE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2393
WP No. 14872 of 2020
HC-KAR
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 076.
5. MR. SHARATH KUMAR HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O MR. ACHYUT HEGDE
NO.2, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN,
LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA
TEMPLE COMPOUND, N.S. PALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BTM SECOND
STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. T. MANOHARAN
S/O LATE A THARMALINGAM
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.145,
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
NS PLAYA, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R2
SRI. M.R. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING AN ORDER
DTD.4.12.2020 IN PCR NO.3067/2020 FILED ON 1ST ACMM TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 191, 192,
196 AND 120 (A) OF IPC VIDE ANENXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.4.12.2020 IN PCR NO.3067/2020 FILED ON 1ST ACMM TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 191, 192,
196 AND 120 (A) OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2393
WP No. 14872 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 5 in PCR.No.3067/2020 (Crime No.206/2020) of Halasuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Heard Sri. L M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and Sri. M R. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the Private Limited Company, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its Directors and petitioner No.5 is the employee in petitioner No.1 - Company. Respondent No.1 who had no authority filed the private complaint in PCR No.3067/2020 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR before the Trial Court alleging commission of the offences under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120-A of IPC. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 had filed a complaint in CC.No.236/2017 before the Special Court for economic offences at Bengaluru under Section 452 of the Companies Act against him. The said complaint came to be dismissed discharging the accused therein as per judgment dated 18.03.2019. However, accused No.1 herein preferred appeal before this Court in Crl.App.No.827/2019 and the said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and directing the Trial Court to consider the case afresh.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that he is in occupation of a residential house. Accused No.2 with active support and collusion with other accused conspired together to commit the offences. Accused Nos.1 to 5 concocted the lease deed signed by accused No.5, who is one of the witnesses. The fabricated and forged lease deed is produced before the Trial Court only to compel the Trial Court to register the complaint filed by accused No.2 on behalf -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR of accused No.1 and the same has been produced in Crl.A.No.827/2019 to compel this Court to allow the appeal and to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. It is contended by respondent No.1 that TDS certificate produced by accused No.2 and got marked as Ex.P6 does not belong to the rental receipts of the properties referred to in the lease deed. It is contended that the TDS certificate for Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- were the deductions that were made by accused No.1 in respect of the salary that was paid to respondent No.1 and there was no deduction from the value of perquisites and the value of rent free accommodation provided to respondent No.1.
5. Respondent No.1 contended that he took steps to test the veracity of the lease deed produced by accused No.2 before the Trial Court and obtained the same through RTI. Then he came to know about the offences committed by the petitioners in collusion with one another. Therefore, a private complaint came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120(A) of IPC. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.2 is the owner of the residential premises, respondent No.1 was an employee under petitioner No.1 and he was provided with rent free accommodation by entering into a lease agreement with petitioner No.1. Even though, respondent No.1 resigned from his job on 08.10.2016, he had not vacated the premises, but was squatting over the same. Therefore, a private complaint in PCR.No.13/2017 was filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.1 under Section 452 of the Companies Act. The same was numbered as CC.No.236/2017 which came to be dismissed on 18.03.2019 by holding that the complainant has not proved commission of the offence. The said judgment was challenged by petitioner No.1 before this Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No.827/2019. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as per order dated 14.11.2019 produced as per Annexure-V and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. It is stated that the Trial Court again acquitted the accused and said judgment was also challenged before this Court by preferring an appeal, which is still pending consideration.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR
7. In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed the police complaint as per Annexure-Y dated 16.01.2020 with Halasuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru. The allegations made in the police complaint is that the petitioners have fabricated the lease deed only for the purpose of producing it before the Trial Court and for the purpose of getting an order of conviction against respondent No.1. However, the police without registering the FIR got the legal opinion and issued an endorsement dated 05.02.2020 informing respondent No.1 that he has no authority to file such complaint. On the other hand, he is required to approach the Court before which such a document is produced when the offences was committed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that suppressing all these facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 filed a private complaint in PCR.No.3067/2020 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the petitioners alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120(A) of IPC even though similar allegations were made in the police complaint. However, suppressing the fact of filing the police -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR complaint and getting the endorsement by the police to approach the very same Court before which the so-called fabricated document was produced, the private complaint came to be filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the only allegation made by the petitioners is that, even though the property is situated at Bengaluru, the stamp paper for drafting the lease deed was obtained at Hosuru and the lease deed is a fabricated document, concocted only for the purpose of producing it before the Trial Court to get respondent No.1 vacated. The private complaint is not accompanied by an affidavit as required to be filed as per directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex in Priyanka Srivastava And Anr V.S State Of U.P And Others1. Such directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court was upheld and reiterated in the subsequent decision in Babu Venkatesh And Others V.S State Of Karnataka And Another2. In the absence of such affidavit, the Trial Court should not have entertained the private complaint, but should have dismissed the same. The Trial Court totally ignored this 1 AIR 2015 SC 1758 2 2022(5) SCC 639 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR mandatory direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and proceeded to refer the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, without application of mind.
10. Learned counsel further contended that, Section 191 of IPC refers to giving of false evidence. Similarly, Section 192 IPC refers to fabricating false evidence. They are not the penal provisions. The other Section invoked by respondent No.1 is Section 196 of IPC, which is refers to using evidence known to be false. It is only Section 193 of IPC which prescribes punishment for false evidence. The said Section was never invoked by respondent No.1. Similarly, Section 120-A of IPC defines the word 'criminal conspiracy'. The Trial Court without applying the mind proceeded to refer the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120A of IPC. On this count alone, the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Trial Court referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is liable to be quashed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 195 of Cr.P.C to contend that there is a specific bar for the Court to take cognizance of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR offences, when the offence alleged are punishable under Sections 193 to 196 both. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the specific bar under Section 195(1)(b)(1) of Cr.P.C, but proceeded to take cognizance of the offences and referred the matter for investigation which is bad under law. Learned counsel also referred to Section 340 of Cr.P.C to contend that there is a procedure to deal with the cases mentioned under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Without following any of these procedures, passing of the order referring the compliant to the investigation is bad under law. There is total non application of mind by the Trial Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the private complaint and also the order passed by the Trial Court referring the complaint for investigation.
12. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daulat Ram V.s State of Punjab3, K.T.M.S Mohd and Another V.s Union of India4, and Amarsang Nathaji As Himself And As Karta And Maner 3 1962 AIR 1206 4 1992(3) SCC 178
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR V.S Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others5 in support of his contention that the requirement under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C are mandatory and same cannot be ignored for any purpose. Therefore, it is contended that it is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that a lease deed was fabricated for the purpose of producing before the Trial Court only for the purpose of seeking his eviction from the premises and he committed the offences under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120A of IPC. The Trial Court could not have proceeded to refer the matter for investigation, but on the other hand, it should have dismissed the private complaint as not maintainable. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
13. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent No.1 opposing the petition submits that lease deed dated 01.04.2015 was entered into between petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The same was fabricated on a stamp paper purchased at Hosur. Even though, the property is situated at Bengaluru as by that time e-stamp was brought into effect in the State of Karnataka. The documents were fabricated by the petitioners in collusion with one another and thereby they have committed offences by 5 2017 (1) SCC 113
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR producing the documents before the Trial Court only to compel the Court to pass an order of eviction under the provisions of Companies Act.
14. Learned counsel submits that the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C applies only when the document that is already produced before the Court is tampered with, but if a fabricated or concocted document is produced before the Court the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C will not be applicable. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah And Another V.S Meenakshi Marwah And Another6, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow V.s U. P Forest Corporation7 in support of his contention. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that a specific contention is taken by respondent No.1 that the petitioners in collusion with one another fabricated the lease deed and thereafter produced it before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, either Section 340 or 195 of Cr.P.C will not be attracted and there is no bar for respondent No.1 to file the private complaint and to maintain 6 AIR 2005 SC 2119 7 1998 AIR SCW 937
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR the same. The Trial Court was right in referring the complaint for investigation, since there is no bar for the same.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the offences alleged fall under Section 465 of IPC and not under any other provisions of law, even though he referred to Section 191, 193, 196 of IPC. He also contended that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C is applicable only for the offence punishable under Section 463 of IPC and not to Section 465 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachidananda Singh and Another V.S State Of Bihar And Another8 in support of his contention that bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced into the Court. Therefore, there is no bar for filing and maintaining the complaint. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petition.
8 1998 AIR SCW 932
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR
16. In view of the rival contentions urged by 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 the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
17. A complaint was filed by respondent No.1 on 16.01.2020 with Halasuru Gate Police, Bengaluru alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120-A of IPC. On perusal of the private complaint filed on 18.01.2020 registered in PCR.No.3067/2020 for similar offences, there is absolutely no explanation as to why within two days after filing the police complaint, the private complaint came to be filed. However, the Police complaint was not registered by the police as per the endorsement that looking into the allegations made in the complaint, since the fabrication and forgery alleged was when the document was before the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR Court, the Court concerned is required to file the complaint. However, by that time a private complaint dated 18.01.2020 was already filed for the same offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120-A of IPC.
18. On a pointed query raised seeking clarification by learned counsel for respondent No.1 as to how or in what manner the forgery or fabrication was done by the accused, he contends that the date of stamp paper for drawing Exs.P.3 and 42 were tampered. According to him, the name of purchaser is also tampered in the stamp paper. But on perusal of Annexure- D, there is no such tampering of the stamp paper. It was purchased on 27.03.2015 in the name of M/s P M Granites Exports Pvt Ltd,. Even though, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the Special Court (Economic Offence) has made an observation that there was fabrication of this document, admittedly the judgment is set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. After remanding there is no such finding recorded by the Special Court.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR
19. The complaint filed by accused No.1 against respondent No.2 before the Special Court under Section 452 of the Companies Act came to be dismissed and respondent No.1 was acquitted. Being aggrieved, the complainant therein preferred Criminal Appeal No.827/2019 before this Court which came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and directing it to reconsider the matter afresh. It is submitted that SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court against such order of this Court.
20. Now the question arises as to whether the bald and only allegation that the date of the stamp paper and name of the purchaser of the stamp papers are tampered can make out any prima facie offence as alleged. On perusal of Exs.P3 and 42 referred to as forged or concocted document, there is no such tampering that could be made out. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has no explanation in that regard. Exs.P3 and 42 are produced before the Special Court for the purpose of getting an order of conviction, which led to filing of the private complaint before the Trial Court by respondent No.1.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR
21. Admittedly, respondent No.1 is not a party either to Ex.P3 or Ex.P42 that was entered into between accused Nos.1 and 2. The contention that the date and name of the purchaser or the stamp paper is tampered in Exs.P3 and 42 do not get any support. The other allegation is that, these lease deeds were deliberately produced for the purpose of getting conviction of respondent No.1 before the Special Court in the complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act. In such situation Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C is squarely acted and It is only the Court before which the document is produced with such ulterior motive is required to give such a finding to file the complaint, since there is bar under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C.
22. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd,. V.s Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc9, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.19 and 22 as under:
"19. At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the 9 AIR 2020 SCC 4247
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.
22. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words "or in relation to", making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in court proceedings. Indeed, it is this distinction that is vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the Appellant's case namely, this Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr reported in (2005) 4 SCC
370."
23. Thus, the position of the Will is very well settled. When there is specific allegation that the accused have given false evidence by producing Exs.P3 and 42 before the Special Court only with an intention to procure connection of respondent No.1, it is attracted either Section 194 or 195 of I.P.C. Once the offence punishable either under Section 194 or Section 195 is alleged, the bar under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C is attracted in view of Section 195(1)(b)(i) and the procedure
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR as provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C will have to be followed.
24. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachidananda Singh and Another (Supra), wherein, the Court held that when the forgery of document was committed before the said document was produced before the Court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not applicable. This settled position of law cannot be disputed. When it is the grievance of respondent No.1 that such a document was produced before the Court with an intention to get his conviction in the complaint filed under Section 452 of the Companies Act, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is very much applicable and the bar under Section 195(1) will apply. Under such circumstances, respondent No.1 could not have filed the private complaint.
25. It is also to be noted that, admittedly, respondent No.1 has not filed an affidavit accompanying the private complaint as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another V.s State of Uttar Pradesh and
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR others10. Even though it is a curable defect, the fact remains that the Trial Court without taking into consideration this as perfect, proceeded to refer the matter for investigation, which shows non application of judicial mind by the Trial Court.
26. The facts and circumstances discussed above discloses that even Exs.P3 and 42 were marked before the Special Court and according to respondent No.1 they were marked only with an intention to get conviction against respondent No.1 during 2017, the complaint came to be filed only in the year 2019 i.e., after allowing Criminal Appeal No.827/2019 filed by accused No.1 by this Court and remanding the matter to the Special Court for fresh consideration. Prima facie, it is only an arm-twist tactics adopted by accused No.1 for prosecuting respondent No.1 before the Special Court.
27. On facts, respondent No.1 was said to the employee under accused No.1. He was given the premises in question as rent free quarters. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not sure as to what is the right of respondent No.1 for being in 10 AIR 2015 SC 1758
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393 WP No. 14872 of 2020 HC-KAR possession of the premises even after he ceases to be an employee under accused No.1 or how he is concerned about either Exs.P3 or 42 which were entered into between accused Nos.1 and 2, to contend that the offences under Sections 463 and 465 of IPC are committed and to contend the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C is not applicable.
28. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, respondent No.1 continued to be in possession of the premises indefinitely even after he ceased to be the employee under accused No.1. Only to pressurize the accused he has thought of filing the criminal complaint and keep the fire burning. Such a tactics cannot be permitted under any circumstances. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that criminal case registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2393
WP No. 14872 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The criminal proceedings initiated
against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 in PCR.No.3067/2020 (Crime No.206/2020) of Halasuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196 and 120-A of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5