SMT. DEEPIKA E vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13604 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. DEEPIKA E
D/O ESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

2. SRI. ESHWARAIAH
S/O SRI. KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

3. SMT. SUJATHA C
W/O SRI. ESHWARIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

4. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR E
S/O ESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO. 426/A, 1ST CROSS
BEHIND ROBERT BOSCH,
7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. LOKESHA A.N, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 040
REP. BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA
NO.898, 15TH CROSS
CHANDRA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 040.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.1557/2023 AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.1557/2023 PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the
order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the LV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-56) (for short,
'the learned Sessions Judge') in S.C. No.1557/2023,
whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that
respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint before
respondent No.1/police on 04.03.2022, alleging that the
accused persons are her daughter-in-law and her family
members. Respondent No.2/complainant has two
daughters and a son. About two years prior to lodging the
complaint, she had performed the marriage of her son,
Prasad (deceased) with petitioner No.1/Deepika E., who is
working at Bengaluru Dairy. After the marriage, her son

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



and petitioner No.1 started residing together, and their
marital relationship was cordial for a period of one year.
Thereafter, they started quarrelling over trivial issues. The
parents of petitioner No.1 used to visit the matrimonial
home and advise both of them not to indulge in quarrels.

3. Despite such advice, the differences between
them continued. Subsequently, the son of respondent
No.2 and petitioner No.1 started residing in a rented
house at Chandra Layout. In January 2022, petitioner
No.1/Deepika E. went to her parental house on the pretext
of ill-health and thereafter did not return to the
matrimonial home.

4. On 04.03.2022, petitioner No.1 lodged a
complaint before the Shivajinagar Women Police Station
against her husband Prasad and respondent No.2.
Pursuant to the summons issued by the Police, her
husband appeared before the Police station. The Police
advised both the husband and petitioner No.1 to resolve

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



their differences and lead a cordial marital life. Thereafter,
respondent No.2 and her son obtained anticipatory bail
from the jurisdictional Court on 18.04.2022 in connection
with the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1.
Subsequently, when they approached the Police station to
comply with the conditions imposed while granting
anticipatory bail, the Police allegedly abused and
threatened the deceased Prasad, stating that he would be
put behind bars. On account of the same, Prasad became
upset and allegedly underwent depression.

5. On 19.04.2022, respondent No.2 and her son
visited a temple situated near their house at about 5.00
p.m. Thereafter, her son Prasad returned home, while
respondent No.2 remained at the temple until about 7.00
p.m. When she returned home, she found the house
locked. Upon opening the door, she found that Prasad had
committed suicide in the car shed. Consequently, she
lodged a complaint on the same day alleging that the
complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 against her son and

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



the subsequent threats allegedly extended by the Police
had driven him to commit suicide.

6. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent
No.1/Police registered an FIR in Crime No.116/2022 dated
19.04.2022 against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Subsequently, respondent No.1/Police conducted
investigation and filed the charge sheet against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed
the case to the Court of Sessions. The petitioners
thereafter filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
seeking their discharge. However, upon consideration of
the charge sheet materials, the learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have approached this Court.

7. Heard Sri. Lokesha A.N., learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri. Mahesha P., learned HCGP for

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



respondent No.1 and Sri. Prakash M.H., learned counsel
for respondent No.2.

8. Apart from urging several other contentions,
the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended
that, upon perusal of the entire charge sheet materials,
absolutely no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC
is made out against the petitioners. According to him,
petitioner No.1, being the wife of the deceased, had
lodged a complaint against her husband deceased Prasad
on 04.03.2022. Thereafter, the Police summoned
respondent No.2 and the deceased to the Police station
and advised them to lead a happy and cordial marital life.
However, respondent No.2 and the deceased themselves
obtained anticipatory bail and, for the purpose of
complying with the conditions imposed therein,
approached the Police station. At that time, the Police
allegedly threatened them, stating that they would be put
behind bars. Subsequently, on 19.04.2022, the deceased
committed suicide. Therefore, there is absolutely no nexus

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



between the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 against
the deceased and respondent No.2 and the commission of
suicide by the deceased Prasad. By no stretch of
imagination can it be said that the petitioners abetted or
instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

9. He further contended that, upon placing
reliance on the charge sheet materials, there is no positive
act attributable to the petitioners which could have
instigated or intentionally aided the deceased Prasad to
commit suicide. According to him, the averments made in
the complaint clearly reveal that the Police threatened the
deceased on 18.04.2022 at the Police station, pursuant to
which he became upset and depressed and, on the
following day, committed suicide. Admittedly, the police
officials who allegedly threatened the deceased have not
been arrayed as accused either in the complaint or in the
charge sheet.

10. In support of his contentions, the learned
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on various

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and contended that,
in order to attract the offence punishable under Section
306 of IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish the
existence of a direct or indirect act of instigation,
intentional aid or abetment on the part of the accused,
having a proximate nexus with the commission of suicide.
Mere allegation of harassment, matrimonial discord or
lodging of a complaint by the wife against her husband, by
themselves, would not constitute abetment of suicide in
the absence of any positive act or mens rea on the part of
the accused to instigate or intentionally aid the deceased
to commit suicide. He further contended that the
allegations made in the complaint and the materials
collected during the course of investigation, even if taken
at their face value, do not disclose the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Accordingly, he submitted that continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an
abuse of the process of Court.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




11. Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the petition contending that the learned
Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the entire charge
sheet materials, rightly rejected the application for
discharge. According to him, the statements of material
witnesses CW.8 and CW.9, namely, the brother-in-law and
maternal aunt of the deceased, clearly reveal that the
deceased Prasad was driven to commit suicide on account
of the false complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 and the
harassment meted out to him.

12. He further contended that, despite there being
no harassment meted out by the deceased Prasad to
petitioner No.1, she had falsely lodged a complaint against
him and had also threatened to lodge a complaint for the
offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC. On account
of the same, the deceased became upset and depressed
and ultimately committed suicide. The other witnesses,
who are the family members of the deceased, have also
spoken about the alleged abetment by the petitioners. He

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



finally contended that the statements of the witnesses are
required to be tested during a full-fledged trial and
therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed
the application for discharge. Accordingly, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.

13. The learned HCGP also opposed the petition on
similar grounds.

14. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the entire charge sheet materials.

15. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is
appropriate to refer to Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), which read as follows:
" 107. Abetment of a thing .— A person abets the
doing of a thing, who—
First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.
306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

16. On a careful reading of the aforesaid
provisions, it is evident that, to constitute an offence
under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must establish
that the accused abetted the commission of suicide within
the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, either by instigating
the deceased, engaging in a conspiracy for the
commission of the act, or intentionally aiding the
commission thereof.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




17. In the instant case, the relationship between
the petitioners, respondent No.2 and the deceased is not
in dispute. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased
Prasad. Their marriage was solemnised in the year 2020.
They resided cordially for a period of one year, and
thereafter their marital relationship became strained,
which ultimately resulted in petitioner No.1 lodging a
complaint against her husband, the deceased Prasad, on
04.03.2022.

18. As per the averments made in the complaint,
after petitioner No.1 lodged the complaint, respondent
No.1/police summoned both parties to the Police station
and, before registration of the FIR, advised them to
resolve their differences and lead a cordial marital life.

19. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and the deceased
Prasad approached the Sessions Court and obtained
anticipatory bail. Subsequently, when they approached the
Police station on 18.04.2022 to comply with the conditions

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



imposed while granting anticipatory bail, it is alleged that
the Police threatened the deceased, stating that he would
be put behind bars in connection with the complaint
lodged by petitioner No.1. It is further alleged that the
Police informed him that he had committed an offence
under Section 377 of IPC. On account of the same, the
deceased became upset and on the following day, i.e.,
19.04.2022, committed suicide.

20. On careful scrutiny of the complaint, nowhere it
is stated that the deceased Prasad committed suicide on
account of any instigation or harassment by the
petitioners. On the contrary, it is specifically alleged that
when the deceased and respondent No.2 approached the
Police station, the Police threatened them, stating that
they would be put both respondent No.2 and her deceased
son behind bars. Admittedly, the complaint by petitioner
No.1 was lodged on 04.03.2022, much prior to the date of
commission of suicide by the deceased.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




21. Nevertheless, even before registration of the
FIR, the Police had summoned both parties and advised
them to lead a cordial marital life. In this background, the
statements of the witnesses, particularly CWs.7, 8, 9 and
10, require careful scrutiny. It is stated in the said
statements that the mother of petitioner No.1 had
threatened that they would teach a lesson to the deceased
for not having taken petitioner No.1 back to the
matrimonial home.

22. However, the statement of CW.7 was recorded
on 06.12.2022, i.e., after a lapse of several months.
Further, even according to the said statement, the mother
of petitioner No.1 i.e., petitioner No.3/accused No.3 had
allegedly called the witness during February 2022,
whereas the deceased committed suicide in April 2022. In
such circumstances, there is no proximity between the
alleged threat or harassment by the petitioners and the
commission of suicide by the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, in the case of Geo Varghese v. State of

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



Rajasthan and Another, reported in (2021) 19 SCC
144 , at paragraph No.22, has held as follows:
" 22 . What is required to constitute an alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there
must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act
of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide
and mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
by another person would not be sufficient in itself,
unless, there are allegations of such actions on the
part of the accused which compelled the commission
of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide
is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to
the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to
induce a similarly situated person to take the
extreme step of committing suicide, it would be
unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of
every case on its own facts and circumstances and
keeping in consideration the surrounding
circumstances as well, which may have bearing on
the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of
the deceased."


23. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, reported
in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834 , has held that, to attract the
provisions of Section 306 of IPC, there must be a clear
mens rea on the part of the accused to commit the
offence. The relevant paragraphs 36 and 38 of the
judgment read as follows:

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




" 36 . To convict a person under Section 306
IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no
other option and the act must be such reflecting
intention of the accused to push deceased into such
a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution
has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1
abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.
In the present case, both the elements are absent.

38 . "This Court has time and again reiterated
that before convicting an accused under Section 306
IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative
but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in
mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide,
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on
the allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence
on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."


24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Nipur
Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 870 , has also reiterated the
principles governing the offence of abetment of suicide

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



under Section 306 of IPC. The relevant paragraphs 21 and
22 of the judgment read as follows:
" 21 . The ingredients to constitute an offence
under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide)
would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by
the deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no
option but to commit suicide. Further, as the
extreme action of committing suicide is also on
account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be
divided into two broad categories. First, where the
deceased is having sentimental ties or physical
relations with the accused and the second category
would be where the deceased is having relations with
the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case
of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or
the hot exchange of words may result into immediate
psychological imbalance, consequently creating a
situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if
the person is unable to control sentiments of
expectations, it may give temptations to the person
to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of
husband and wife, mother and son, brother and
sister, sister and sister and other relations of such
type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to
physical relations. In the case of second category the
tie is on account of official relations, where the
expectations would be to discharge the obligations as
provided for such duty in law and to receive the
considerations as provided in law. In normal
circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
cannot be equated with the official relationship. The
reason being different nature of conduct to maintain
that relationship. The former category leaves more
expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



large, the expectations and obligations are
prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations."
" 22 . The test that the Court should adopt in
this type of cases is to make an endeavour to
ascertain on the basis of the materials on record
whether there is anything to indicate even prima
facie that the accused intended the consequences of
the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend
of the courts is that such intention can be read into
or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The
problem is that the courts just look into the factum
of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such
understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It
all depends on the nature of the offence &
accusation. For example, whether the accused had
the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC
could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on
the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as
regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of
assault, the weapon used, the role played by the
accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of
suicide by and large the facts make things clear more
particularly from the nature of the allegations itself.
The Courts should know how to apply the correct
principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the
facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the
courts to understand and apply the correct principles
of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which
leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do
understand and appreciate the feelings and
sentiments of the family members of the deceased
and we cannot find any fault on their part if they
decide to lodge a First Information Report with the
police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the
courts of law to look into the matter and see that the
persons against whom allegations have been levelled
are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to
trial just for the sake of prosecuting them."

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024




25. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, and upon an overall consideration of the
allegations and the statements of the witnesses, this Court
finds that there is no material to indicate that the
petitioners had, either directly or indirectly, instigated or
intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. There
is also no material to prima facie indicate any mens rea on
the part of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit
suicide. Mere lodging of a complaint by a wife alleging
harassment by her husband cannot, by itself, be
construed as an act of abetment to commit suicide.

26. It is by now well settled that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a
frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious.
This would tarnish the image of the person against whom
false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v.
State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 ,

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



held that whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstance 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 Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into
a count the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation.

27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present
case, it is necessary to examine whether the materials
collected during the course of investigation disclose
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

28. On an overall consideration of the entire charge
sheet materials, this Court is of the considered view that,
even if the allegations made in the FIR and the other
materials collected during the course of investigation are
taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section
34 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners.

29. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners/accused would amount to an abuse

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60154
CRL.P No. 13604 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010687882024



of the process of Court. These aspects of the matter have
not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions
Judge while dismissing the application filed under Section
227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, interference with the impugned
order is warranted. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 25.10.2024 passed in S.C.
No.1557/2023 by the LV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-56), is
hereby set aside.
iii. The application filed by the petitioners/accused
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
iv. Consequently, the petitioners/accused are
discharged from the offences punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE

TMP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1