ORDER :

The petitioners herein arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 respectively in C.C.No.1718 of 2009, which is pending before the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru have filed this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent against them in the aforesaid charge-sheeted case, by urging various grounds.

2. Heard Shri. D.R. Anandeeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners who is physically present before the Court and so also, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/State.

3. It is transpired from the case of the prosecution that the complainant, Jayaram had filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, White-Field Police Station, Bengaluru vide Annexure-‘A’ wherein he has stated the subject as assault and looting of house-hold articles, gold jewelleries, cash and other valuables, etc., which is a typed complaint. In the said complaint, it is specifically stated that Sri. Muniswamappa was conferred with the occupancy right by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk in respect of Sy.No.44 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas of Pattandur Village, in which they have constructed a house and he is residing in the said house. Ever since the conferment of the rights, the said Muniswamappa continued in possession and enjoyment of the same and is in possession and enjoyment till today. But on 11.06.1996, in the evening, when the complainant was out of the house and his wife, Smt. Rukmini who was a pregnant lady in the house, the said Kodihalli Sonnappa, Mohan Rao and others numbering about 30 persons illegally entered into the house and assaulted his wife and looted the household articles, jewelleries, cash and other valuables from his house worth about Rs.3,00,000/- and threatened to leave the house. The complaint was lodged along with the list of valuables, which were looted from his house.

4. Though the list of valuables appended with the typed complaint as filed by him on 12.06.1996, but the said list is not appended with any receipt relating to the purchase of gold items stated in the said list.

5. Based upon his complaint, the case in Cr.No.112 of 1996 has been registered by the Whitefield Police and laid the ‘B’ final report on 02.10.1996 and produced ‘B’ final report vide Annexure-‘C’. But the second respondent, namely, Jayaram filed a Protest Petition before the Court having jurisdiction to proceed further. Based upon Protest Memo, the jurisdictional Court accepted the Protest Memo of the second respondent and directed the Kadugodi C.P.I for investigation. After referring the matter for investigation through C.P.I vide order dated 04.03.1999 and thereafter hearing, the Trial Court once again modified the said order dated 04.03.1999 and the case has been referred to the jurisdictional Deputy Superintended of Police for investigation on 18.03.2000. After the direction of the Trial Court, the deputy Superintendent of Police once again had filed ‘B’ report on 23.02.2001 in Cr.No.112 of 1996. It is further stated in the petition that against the said ‘B’ report dated 23.02.2001, the second respondent had once against filed Protest Petition. The Trial Court after hearing the complainant on Protest Petition on 24.01.2003 had rejected the complaint of the second respondent. Against the said order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the Trial Court, the second respondent had filed a criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2003 before the District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which came to be allowed and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the same and thereafter, the complainant had adduced evidence of PW Nos.1 to 7 and got marked documents C1 to C61. Even after passing an order on the protest memo on 20.06.2009, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 48, 352, 506(B), 381, 148 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. against 13 persons including the petitioners. On the basis of an order passed by the