Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sameer Hamsa Ramla vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8984 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. MR. SAMEER HAMSA RAMLA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHRI ALIYARU KUNJU HAMSA
R/O 1161, COLFAX AVENUE
DES PLAINES ILLINOIS
CHICAGO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND ALSO R/O T C 7/966
KOCHU ULLOOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
KERALA-695011
2. RAMLA BEEVI ABDUL KHARIM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O LATE SHARI ALIYARU HAMSA KUNJU
R/O T C 7/966
KOCHU ULLOOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
KERALA-695011
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DEEPA J., ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KADUGODI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 067
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2 . MALIKE SABA
W/O SAMEER HAMSA RAMLA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT APARTMENT
NO.3067
PRESTIGE SHANTI NIKETAN
WHITE FILED
BENGALURU-560048
KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.D. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH FIR BEARING
NO.133/2021 DATED 06.08.2021 UNDER SECTIONS 498A,
34, 406, 307, 323, 507, 420 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION
3 OF D.P ACT OF RESPONDENT NO.1, KADUGODI P.S.,
BANGALORE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ACJM,
BANGALORE AND ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT WOULD
EMANATE THEREFROM.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.05.2023, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in crime No.133/2021 registered by the Kadugodi police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 34, 406, 307, 323, 507, 420 of IPC read with Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, now pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 the defacto complainant filed the first information statement before the respondent NO.1- Kadugodi police on 06.08.2021 alleging that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 25.09.2016 at Thiruvananthapuram. Their marriage was also registered 4 at Sub-Registrar Office at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. The 1st petitioner presently resides at the United States of America. The complainant is working as an engineer at Benglauru at the time of marriage and settled at Benglauru. The complainant further alleges that both the petitioners have demanded dowry and her entire salary savings. When she refused to give the same, they abused in filthy language and harassed her. However, the father of the complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs immediately after the marriage on 27.09.2016. The 2nd petitioner asked her to give money from her savings to purchase a flat at Thiruvananthapuram and she was threatened to spoil her marital life. Later, the complainant joined the 1st petitioner in United States on job on 07.12.2016 by getting Visa and air travel on her own cost. The 1st petitioner also demanded to buy a flat as the 2nd petitioner wanted the same. They also demanded Honda City Car for his mother
-2nd petitioner and threatened and harassed her, mentally and physically. Even the 2nd petitioner used to telephone to 1st petitioner and provoked him to commit cruelty 5 against the 2nd respondent-complainant. The complainant further alleged that they have suppressed the previous marriage of the 1st petitioner where it was ended in divorce, due to domestic violence on his first wife. Later, on 10.07.2018, a daughter was born to them. However, the 1st petitioner snatched the child from her and pushed her on the ground. She called her parents and informed the same. When her father spoken to the 1st petitioner, he threatened and asked him not to interfere. She did not lodge any complaint in the United States in order to save the marital life and future of the child. The 2nd petitioner came to the United States of America and stayed between 17.11.2018 and 05.12.2018. It is further alleged that, once again, the accused snatched the child from her and abused her in filthy language and then she called the police reported the incident. Due to mental shock and emotion, the complainant went to her brother's house at Pennsylvania in the United States of America. At that time, both the petitioners threatened respondent No.2- complainant and therefore, she left the matrimonial home 6 on 15.10.2018. But the 1st petitioner continued to torture the complainant and he was not paying day-today expenses of the baby. On 29.12.2018, the petitioners assaulted the complainant and snatched all her jewelry and belongings and threw her out of the house. As a result, she went to her brother's place and thereafter, came to India and stayed in Noida to live with her parents. Even then, the 1st petitioner threatened her over phone and demanded dowry. Hence, she filed a case for divorce, maintenance and custody and however, in the year 2019, she withdrew all those cases as the 1st petitioner undertook that he would look after his wife-complainant and her child. Thereafter, again, the 1st petitioner has not paid any maintenance. Hence, she came back to Bengaluru on 06.03.2020. On the demand of the 1st petitioner, the father of the complainant paid Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry and the 1st petitioner agreed to take her to the United States of America. Then on 3.12.2020, the complainant was in Chicago. Again on 14.12.2020, the 1st petitioner demanded her savings and account accessible 7 information. Petitioner No.1 also said to be told that he had beaten his first wife and nothing has happened, and therefore, he would threat the complainant also and used to harass her. It is further alleged that, on 02.06.2021, in the house at the United States of America, the petitioner No.1 harassed her and in turn, kicked her and attempted to kill her. When the child was in her hand, she managed to escape and run out from the house and called the police from the neighbour home and reported the incident. The video recording in respect of the part of the incident was done by her. On seeing that, the 1st petitioner snatched her phone and threatened to kill her. She intimated the same to the Cook County Court at the United States of America. The United States of America Court gave protection on 03.06.2021 for 20 days since, she was apprehended the risk of her life in the hands of the petitioner-accused. She came back to Bengaluru on 22.06.2021. She alleged that the accused have spoiled her life and her daughter. They continuously threatened her for snatching the child. The 1st petitioner called her 8 on 20.7.2021 over phone and pronounced three times as "talak, talak, talak" on respondent NO.2 and made her life living in hell. Her properties are in the custody of the petitioners and the same has not been returned by them. Therefore, prayed for taking action. The police, after registering the case, issued FIR for the abovesaid offences and the same is under challenge in this case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that, as per the allegations, the entire incident took place at the United States of America and respondent No.2-complainant has already filed a complaint to the United States of America police and the said police after investigation, said that there is no truth in the complaint. Therefore, the United States of America County Court also terminated the interim protection order. It is further submitted that the complainant herself came and stayed in India. After the thorough investigation, the United States of America police have stated that no offence was committed by the petitioners. There was e-mail 9 correspondence between the complainant and the the United States of America police, where it is clearly mentioned by the police that they cannot arrest the petitioners as there is no offence committed. It is further contended that once the United States of America police have investigated the matter on the complaint of the respondent No.2-complainant and submitted that no offence is committed by the petitioners, but again for the same cause of action, respondent No.2-complainant has filed a false complaint at Bengaluru in order to harass the petitioners. There is no ingredient or cause of action arose at Bengaluru for registering the FIR. There is no material to show that the petitioners have demanded and accepted any dowry amount.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioner No.1 was staying in the United States of America and the complainant herself left the house and she had carried the entire articles along with 10 her and therefore, the question of retaining the Streedhan property by the petitioners does not arise.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant was the 2nd marriage, and both of them are divorcees. In order to harass the petitioners, the respondent No.2-complainant filed various cases against the petitioners. She has already filed three cases before the Noida Court and withdrawn the same. Petitioner No.1 himself took respondent No.2-complainant to the United States of America in a flight in the business class by spending more than 2.50 lakhs and therefore, the question of spending money by respondent No.2 does not arise. Petitioner No.2 was residing in the United States of America for a short period and she is the permanent resident of Kerala and therefore, absolutely, there is no material against her. Respondent No.2-complainant fabricated the story and filed the complaint against the petitioners to harass them. The learned counsel also 11 submitted that the Bengaluru police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter for the offences committed in the United States of America. Therefore, prayed for quashing the same.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments
1. Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs state of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712
2. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs state of UP & Anr in SLP(Crl.) No.10547/2010
3. Vimala Sharma and Others vs State of Karnataka and others in Crl.Pet 5405/2018
4. Rashmi chopra vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 357
5. Varala Bharath Kumar and Another vs State of Telangana and Anr. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 413
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition and contended that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2- complainant was solemnized at Kerala. Prior to the 12 marriage, respondent No.2 was residing at Bengaluru and once again, now she is residing at Bengaluru and settled along with her parents. The learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that the offence under Section 498A of IPC is the continuing offence and the petitioners have harassed respondent NO.2- complainant. The police are ready to investigate the matter and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- complainant objected the petition and contended that respondent No.2-complainant was residing in Bengaluru prior to her marriage and subsequently, the marriage was held at Kerala. Thereafter, again she came back to Bengaluru and started to reside at Bengaluru. During that time, the petitioners have harassed respondent No.2- complainant for dowry and taken Rs.3.00 lakhs from the father of the complainant. Subsequently, she went to United States of America by spending her own money. There was harassment by petitioner No.1 at United States 13 of America and he was not providing money for her maintenance and later, she came back to India and stayed at Noida. At that time, she filed cases against the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 requested and undertook that he would look after the complainant properly and therefore, she withdrew all the cases filed against the petitioners and joined petitioner No.1. Thereafter, once again, petitioner No.1 started harassing the complainant. Even the 2nd petitioner came to United States of America and stayed for some time. At that time, both petitioners have harassed the complainant. She has filed complaint to the police at United States of America, but later, due to fear of petitioners, she was forced to leave the place along with her child. Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed at Bengaluru. When she was about to go to United States of America, accused No.1 obtained Rs.5.00 lakhs from her father, they harassed the respondent her for money, in order to purchase a flat at Kerala and also demanded money for the purchase of a car to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, she was forced to file 14 complaint against the petitioner and the Bengaluru police have jurisdiction to investigate the matter, even if the offence is committed at abroad.
In support of her arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied upon the following judgments:
1. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
2. Rupali Devi v. State of UP reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384
3. Ruhi v. Anees Ahmad reported in (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1308
4. Sunita Kumari Kashyap P. v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301
5. In the case of Dr. Baljeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - reported in (2013) SCC OnLine Del 1752
6. Gaganpreet Kaur v. State (UT) of Chandigarh reported in 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1080
7. Priyank Mehta v. State (NCT) of Delhi and Another reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4521
8. Shiv Dayal Arora v. Renu Arora reported in 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 242 15
9. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Lalita Mor & Ors.
reported in 1994 SCC OnLine All 764
10. Abhishek Shukla v. State of UP & Ors reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 386
11. Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, through Principal Secretary and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 527
9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the offences committed by the petitioners cannot be investigated by the Bangalore police as the allegations are against the petitioners were the offence committed at United States of America. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that the Bangalore police are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter as respondent No.2 is residing at Bangalore, subsequent to her marriage held at Tiruvananthpuram, Kerala. Learned counsel for the 16 respondent No.2 further contended that during the marriage talks, the petitioners demanded the dowry and also received dowry articles. Even after the dispute between the parties, the dowry articles were kept by petitioner No.2. They demanded amount for purchasing a site and a car in Kerala. The respondent No.2 permanently is residing at Bangalore. Therefore, she can maintain the complaint at Bangalore. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also contended that even for the offences committed outside India, the FIR can be maintained at Bangalore. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Shukla case (supra), wherein at paragraphs 14, 15, 19 and 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
14. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also relied upon the provisions of Section 188 and 189 of the Cr.P.C. which are being reproduced here as under:--17
"188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."
189. Receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India. When any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired into or tried under the provisions of section 188, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that copies of depositions made or exhibits produced before a judicial officer in or for that territory or before a diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall be received as evidence by the Court holding such inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court 18 might issue a commission for taking evidence as to the matters to which such depositions or exhibits relate.
15. He submits that the petitioner could be tried in India even for the offences which he had committed in the USA. He submits that for investigation, in fact, no sanction of the Central Government was also required. For this purpose, he relied upon (2011) 9 SCC 527 (Thota Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary). So far as the evidence was concerned, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that under Section 189 Cr.P.C. all the evidence could be obtained by the investigating agency even from the USA.
19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds from the perusal of the First Information Report that there are allegations which reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. Respondent No. 4 has alleged various kinds of cruelties which had led her to various illnesses. The respondent no. 4 had also alleged that there was a miscarriage which had resulted because of the fact that the petitioner had pushed her. Still further the Court finds that the respondent no. 4 was being deprived of her financial resources and that had driven her to come back to India and in India also, the Court finds, there was a threat made vis-a-vis the respondent no. 4 and her 19 parents on 26.2.2021 when two persons had reached her house at 5.30 PM and had threatened her with dire consequences. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was a counter-blast to the notice for divorce and that the FIR itself was a malicious persecution of the petitioner do not hold any water.
21. The Court also finds that under Section 188 and 189 Cr.P.C. the offences alleged to have been committed beyond the territory of India by an Indian citizen could be investigated into and also tried in India."
11. In another judgment in Sunitha Kumari Kashyap's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, at paragraphs 17 and 18, has held as under:
"17. Mr Sanyal also relied on a decision of this Court in Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 11 SCC 103 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 109] wherein following the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith [(2004) 8 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134] this Court held that "cause of action" having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was 20 committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. For the same reasons, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while there is no dispute as to the proposition in view of the fact that in the case on hand, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of the continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. In view of the above reason, both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case and we are unable to accept the stand taken by Mr Sanyal.
18. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, as the offence 21 was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill- treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant at the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all had taken part and on other occasions one of the accused, namely, the husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted."
12. In another judgment in Rupali Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered that the complaint can be filed by the wife where she permanently resides, after driving out from the matrimonial home. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 15 and 16, has held as under:
"15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy 22 in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The definition of "domestic violence" in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanations (a) & (b) to Section 498-A of the Penal Code which define "cruelty". The provisions contained in Section 498- A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty 23 committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 CrPC which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code."
13. In another judgment in Ruhi's case (supra), a similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and transferred the case to the Court at Delhi Court from the Court at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
14. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu's case (supra) where the 24 Hon'ble Supreme Court , at paragraphs 16 and 17, has held as under:
"16. Accordingly, up to the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 CrPC. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required.
17. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, the offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 CrPC."25
15. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, it indicates that the offence under Section 498A of IPC is the continuing offence, which was committed in India as well as in the United States of America. Respondent No.2-complainant when she came to India thereafter, the petitioner said to be continued the harassment on her. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceptable that respondent No.2 cannot file any complaint at Bangalore for the offences committed outside India. However, the demand of dowry, the negotiation for the marriage and solemnization of the marriage were all took place in India and subsequently, there was harassment outside India and later, once again, respondent No.2 came and stayed at Bangalore, even then, the petitioner is continuing the harassment for one or the other reasons.
16. It is also seen from the records, that the child was given to the custody of respondent NO.2 by the order 26 of Division Bench of this Court and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no harassment suffered by respondent No.2 in the hands of petitioner in India.
17. In respect of another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner and respondent nO.2 were residing in the United States of America and there, she has lodged a complaint against the petitioners for domestic violence, the County Court at the United States of America granted an order of protection. Thereafter, the police at the United States of America investigated the matter and stated that there is no offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, the question of investigating the matter by the Bangalore police does not arise. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vimala Sharma's (supra), where the Co-ordinate Bench has taken the view that the incident occurred in the United States of America 27 and the local enforcement authorities investigated the matter and found no material and closed the same, and therefore, once again, the complaint cannot be entertained in India and quashed the criminal proceedings. However, in the present case, there is serious allegation made out against the petitioners by respondent No.2 in the complaint not only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC but also for the dowry harassment and demanding a plot and a car at Kerala. Petitioner No.1 also said to be received Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry in Bengaluru and prior to registration of marriage, he received Rs.3.00 lakhs from the complainant's father. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was exchange of e-mails between them and she has not made any complaint etc., but in my considered opinion, the matter requires detailed investigation and the police may record the statement of the father of complainant and further statement of respondent No.2 and this Court cannot verify all the 28 documents and give findings by conducting a mini trial for the purpose of quashing the FIR.
18. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure case (supra), at paragraphs 15 and 18, has held that when the allegations are disclosed for cognizable case or not, the court is not required to consider on merits and the Court has to permit the investigation officer to investigate the allegations made in the complaint/FIR. Therefore, in my considered view, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand, where the police are required to investigate the matter thoroughly and to file final report. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition filed by petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs