Biswanath Patra @ Patro & Ors. vs State of Odisha & Ors.

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

The Petitioners against whom the allegation of firing towards the cousin brother of the informant is made, are seeking for quashing of the entire Criminal Proceedings initiated against them vide S.T. Case No.57-A/2023 and S.T. Case No.58-B/2023 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 109 and 34 of the IPC.

On 10.12.2019 at about 8.30 A.M. the informant named Nirmal Kumar Sahu lodged a written report before the IIC, Balliguda Police Station alleging therein that he came to know from the wife of his cousin brother named Abhimanyu Panda that on 10.12.2019 at about 7.30 A.M. while his cousin brother was in his house, two persons came there and started arguing with him on the issue pertaining to the Jagannath Temple in question, where they were making allegation against his cousin brother that he was proceeding against the leading persons of the village. Soon after the said quarrel, they fired bullets towards his cousin brother and fled from the spot by their Bullet Motorcycle. Thereafter, he was shifted to the local hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, the cousin brother of the informant who was also a member of the Trust Board of the said Jagannath Temple, passed away.

Accordingly, upon lodging of the FIR and completion of investigation the above noted S.T. Cases were instituted against the present Petitioners.

The Petitioners seek to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them vide S.T. Case No.57-A/2023 and S.T. Case No.58-B/2023 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

There exists an unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion, which creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations and militates against the presumption of bona fides.

The IIC, Balliguda Police Station while registering Balliguda P.S. Case No.188, dated 10.12.2019 under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, mentioned the names of the Petitioners besides two unknown assailants in the FIR. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) Baliguda Police Station made a meticulous technical and scientific investigation and submitted the Preliminary Charge Sheet on 26.02.2026 wherein the Petitioners were emphatically not charge-sheeted. On the other hand, the charge-sheeted accused persons allegedly involved in the criminal conspiracy and crime in furtherance of common intention, were arrested and forwarded to the court. They faced the Trial and were convicted and sentenced vide Judgment dated 25.11.2024.

During the course of investigation vide the Preliminary Charge Sheet, the I.O has specifically found that the informant Nirmal Kumar Sahu and co., due to long standing enmity with the Petitioners, has falsely and maliciously implicated them. During the trial of the accused persons named Ram Narayan Nahak @ Golaka, Kanhu Charan Sahu, K. Biswajit Patra, S. Balaji Achary, Rasa Bihari Dash and Babula @ Bablu Muni, the learned Trial Court was pleased to entertain a petition under Sections 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the Public Prosecutor to add the Petitioners and another Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya as accused persons vide the order dated 19.10.2023.

Admittedly, the Petitioners filed CRLMC No.273 of 2024 challenging the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam in S.T. Case No.57 & 58 of 2023. Accordingly, vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed in the said CRLMC the Petitioners were protected for six weeks so as to enable them to surrender before the jurisdictional the trial court and seek appropriate remedy available to them under law. Thereafter, in the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.570 of 2024 arising out of the said case, the Petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh petition, if so advised. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 19.10.2023 has not been passed in S.T. Case Nos.57 & 58 of 2023 on merit.

The Opposite Party No.4 is making mountains out of a mole hill that the Petitioners are guilty of the suppression of the fact of disposal of CRLMC No.273 of 2024. However, the Petitioners have not filed the instant CRLMC challenging the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in S.T. No.57 & 58 of 2023, rather their specific prayer is to quash the Criminal Proceedings vide S.T. Case Nos.57 & 58 of 2023 which are subjudiced in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur and to direct the Informant & Co. (O.P. No.4) to pay compensation to the Petitioners for baselessly and groundlessly lodging false report and being instrumental in framing criminal case against them, besides cost and other reliefs.

On 15.10.2025, the learned Trail Court had framed the charges in ST Case No.57/2023 and ST Case No.58/2023 under Sections 302/34, 302/120-B and 302/109 of IPC against the present Petitioners and another Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya, although there is not a syllable in the charge sheet and the relevant police papers to prima facie make out any case against the Petitioners for commissioning the alleged offences.

On 26 02.2025 the Final Charge Sheet was placed wherein the Investigating Officer once again categorically reiterated that the complainant lodged this FIR in suspicion that Patra family could have done this incident due to previous enmity relating to vacation of the shop in question as there was no specific identification of the accused persons. Hence, on getting no idea they directly indicated the possible reason of dispute and moreover there was bitter family rivalry between the complainant's family and the Petitioner’s family. Both the family heads lead to different political parties in Ballliguda and were prominent during the time of communal riot in the year 2007-08. Many case(s) were registered pertaining to the said issue and out of which, the father of the complainant-Nirmal Kumar Sahu named Gangadhar Sahu who was arrested and forwarded to custody, he vehemently alleges that Gopal Patra family is responsible for his involvement in the crime and for which he is behind the Bar in P.S. Case No.227/2007. Since then, the cold war was between the Patra brothers as it was totally a blind case. The I.O. has categorically come to the conclusion that the technical investigation like CCTV verification and mobile data verification could help to gather the evidence against the real culprits. But, during the entire investigation, no such evidences could be collected against the FIR named accused persons to have involved in this case.

Unfortunately, the learned Trial court without any rhyme and reason closed its eyes to the preliminary as well as final charge sheets resulting in the merciless victimization of the Petitioners without any fault. As such the informant and his unscrupulous syndicate deserves to be punished and taught befitting lesson for causing irreparable loss and injuries to the Petitioners beyond any salvage. There was no valid reason to subject the Petitioners to the draconian criminal trial based on rank surmises, conjectures and out and out subjective considerations, merely because there was charged enmity and acute political rivalry and bad blood between the informant and syndicate in one hand and the Petitioners in the other hand.

He further contends that the learned Trial Court is absolutely not justified in overlooking the prosecution papers in general and the findings of the responsible and impersonal senior investigating officers and supervising senior Police Officers. While framing the charge vide order dated 15.10.2025, the learned Trial Court signally has failed to take judicial notice of the meticulous, scientific and technical investigation made by the Police and probably with a preconceived mind and under the spell of prejudices.

The entire trial against the Petitioners is a gross abuse of the time and process of the judicial court and in no way, it upholds the majesty of the court. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that if such type of trial/prosecution is allowed, nobody on the Earth would feel safe against the sweeping allegations as made by the informant.

One Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya had filed CRLREV No.888 of 2025 challenging the charges framed against him. The decision in the said Criminal Revision is not binding the present CRLMC. The Petitioners were not parties in the said Criminal Revision. As such, they did not have any scope and opportunity to raise the grounds, canvassed by them pertaining to the instant case in the Criminal Revision (supra). In order to strengthen the case of the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Petitioners also relies on the following decisions: -

State of Haryana and Ors. Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. :AIR 1992 SC 604 Para-54

Suman Mishra & Ors. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: (2025) SCC Online SC 295 Criminal Appeal No…… of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9215 of 2024 decided on February 12, 2025. Para-19

B.N. John Vrs. State of U.P and Anr. 2025 SCC Online SC 7 ,Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2184 of 2024 decided on January 2, 2025. Para-35.

Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through legal representatives and Ors. Vrs. Union of India : (2023) 10 SC 531 Page 437 & 537

Chandra Sekhar Jasawal @ Sonu Jayasawal Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. : SLP (Criminal) No.6576 of 2023 Para 25

The continuation of the proceedings would result in grave prejudice, harassment, and miscarriage of justice, and amounts to abuse of the criminal process.

The present case is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court as the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet and material collected during investigation disclose a clear prima facie case against the Petitioners and that the role of the Petitioners is evident from the record and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Further, the pleas raised by the Petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which require detailed examination during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and that the present petition is an attempt to derail a legitimate prosecution which otherwise warrants trial and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the challenge in the present CRLMC is directed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in S.T. Case Nos.57 & 58 of 2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, upon a judicious appreciation of the evidence that had surfaced during trial, exercised the jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the present Petitioners to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 120-B/302/109/34 IPC.

The impugned order unmistakably reflects a conscious and well-reasoned exercise of judicial discretion. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur did not invoke the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mechanically or merely at the instance of the prosecution. On the contrary, the learned Sessions Judge first considered the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, examined the oral evidence already adduced during trial, reproduced the statutory mandate under Section 319 Cr.P.C., analysed the testimony of each material witness and thereafter recorded a reasoned satisfaction regarding the existence of a strong prima facie case against the Petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12 and PW-14, read in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances brought on record, unequivocally disclosed the involvement of Shyam Sundar Patra, Biswanath Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra, Rama Chandra Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya in the criminal conspiracy culminating in the murder of Abhimanyu Panda. It was further contended that the consistent evidence regarding the long-standing dispute over the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple, Balliguda, coupled with the motive and antecedent hostility borne out during trial, warranted their prosecution under Sections 120-B/302/109/34 IPC, notwithstanding their non-inclusion in the charge-sheet. Before recording its satisfaction, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur reproduced Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Upon examining the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12 and PW-14, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur found that each of them had implicated Shyam Sundar Patra, Biswanath Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra, Rama Chandra Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya in hatching the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased Abhimanyu Panda, an RTI activist and Trustee of Lord Jagannath Temple, Balliguda, owing to the long-standing dispute concerning the temple properties.

The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur thereafter analysed the testimony of each of the material witnesses individually. PW-3 (Nirmal Kumar Sahu--Informant) deposed that shortly before the occurrence, two unknown persons came to the residence of the deceased, questioned him regarding the affairs of Balliguda Jagannath Temple, demanded to know as to why he was challenging the activities of Shyam Sundar Patra, Biswanath Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra and Rama Chandra Patra during the course of such confrontation, one of them fired at the deceased with a Pistol. PW-4 (Ajit Kumar Pando) deposed regarding the previous hostility between the deceased and Shyam Sundar Patra, Gopal Patra, K. Biswajit Patra, Rama Chandra Patra and Ananda Prasad Acharya @ Chintu arising out of the eviction of temple shops belonging to Lord Jagannath Temple.

He further stated that the deceased had informed him about the said hostility prior to his death and had also approached the Endowment Commissioner and the local Police. According to him, the deceased, being the Secretary of the Temple Trust, had opposed the continued occupation of the temple shops without payment of rent and he believed that the said persons had engaged supari killers to eliminate the deceased. PW-6 (Madhusudan Das) deposed that owing to disputes concerning the eviction of temple land and properties of Lord Jagannath Temple, there existed persistent hostility between himself, the deceased and K. Biswajit Patra, Rama Chandra Patra, Shyam Sundar Patra, Rinku Panda, Ananda Prasad Acharya and Padma Charan Panigrahi, who had repeatedly opposed them over the said issues. PW-7 (Chhabirani Panda - wife of the Deceased) deposed that prior to the incident there existed serious enmity between the deceased and K. Biswajit Patra, Shyamsundar Patra, Biswanath Patra, Rama Patra, Chintu Acharya and Gopal Patra concerning the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple, Balliguda, particularly because Shyamsundar Patra, being the former Secretary of the Temple, had failed to hand over charge to his successor, resulting in continuous disputes with the deceased. PW-12 (P. Prabhupad Panda is the Son of the Deceased) deposed stating that to the best of his knowledge, his father was murdered due to disputes relating to Lord Jagannath Temple, Balliguda and he had heard about the conflict between his father and Shyam Sundar Patra, his brother and Biswajit Patra concerning the temple properties prior to the occurrence. P.W-14 (Sontosh Kumar Padhy) deposed that, shortly before the incident, the deceased had visited Berhampur for endowment related work and disclosed to him the long-standing hostility of Shyam Patra, Rama Chandra Patra, Gopal Patra, Biswanath Patra and K. Biswajit Patra regarding the eviction of temple shops. He further stated that K. Biswajit Patra had instituted litigation against the deceased and Madhusudan Dash, and expressed his belief that the aforesaid persons, in connivance with others, had orchestrated the murder of Abhimanyu Panda to avenge the disputes relating to the temple properties.

Upon a cumulative and independent appraisal of the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12 and PW-14 the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur recorded a clear judicial satisfaction that the evidence which had surfaced during trial disclosed a strong prima facie case against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 120-B,302,109 and 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence consistently pointed towards the Petitioners' alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy culminating in the murder of the deceased and, consequently, exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directing issuance of process against them.

Having meticulously analysed the aforesaid evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur arrived at a clear and reasoned judicial satisfaction that the evidence which had emerged during trial, disclosed the existence of a strong prima facie case against Shyam Sundar Patra, Biswanath Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra, Rama Chandra Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya for offences punishable under Sections 120-81302/109134 lPC. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the said offences against the aforesaid persons and directed issuance of process to secure their appearance for trial.

The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur thereafter addressed the legal consequence of summoning the newly added accused and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh^{11.(2002) 22 OCR (SC) 811} which held that although the pending Sessions Trial need not await the conclusion of proceedings against the newly summoned accused, they were nevertheless required to be tried by way of a de novo trial, with the proceedings commencing afresh and the witnesses being re-examined in accordance with Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge directed that a separate Sessions Trial be registered against the newly added accused and that the relevant records and police papers be segregated for conducting the fresh trial.

The impugned order, therefore, is not a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction but a well-reasoned judicial determination founded upon the evidence that emerged during trial, the statutory requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), this Court does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The evaluation of the evidentiary worth of the prosecution case and the determination of guilt or innocence lie exclusively within the domain of the learned Trial Court upon a full-fledged trial

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. At the very outset, it needs to be clarified that the present CRLMC, though couched as a petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings vide S.T. Case Nos. 57 and 58 of 2023, is in substance and effect a challenge to the correctness and propriety of the order dated 19.10.2023 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoning the Petitioners to face trial. It is the said order which forms the very foundation of the Petitioners being arrayed as accused, and it is the validity of that order which this Court is called upon to test while examining whether continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioners amounts to an abuse of process of court.

The first limb of argument touching upon delay in lodging the FIR does not merit independent consideration insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, since admittedly they were not named in the FIR at all, and were subsequently summoned during trial on the strength of evidence that surfaced before the Court. The question of delay in setting the criminal law into motion against the original named accused, therefore, has no direct bearing on the legality of the order summoning the Petitioners at a later stage of trial.

Equally, the fact that the Petitioners were not charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer and that the final charge sheet reflects an opinion doubting their complicity, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive, or as foreclosing the power of the Trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the opinion of the Investigating Officer, as reflected in a charge sheet, is not binding on the Court. The Sessions Judge trying the case is entitled and indeed obliged to independently assess the evidence that unfolds before it during trial, regardless of the stance taken by the investigating agency at the stage of submission of charge sheet.

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power vested in the Trial Court to ensure that real perpetrators of an offence do not escape from the long arm of law, merely because they were not arraigned as accused at the inception. The threshold for exercise of this power as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that of a strong and cogent prima facie case, higher than the standard applicable at the stage of taking cognizance but stopping short of the standard required for conviction. The evidence need not be tested on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt at this stage and it suffices if the evidence on record, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.

On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge has not acted mechanically, or upon a mere request of the prosecution, but has independently examined the depositions of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12, and PW-14, each of whom, in substantial measure, speaks of long-standing hostility between the deceased and the Petitioners, arising out of disputes concerning the properties and management of Lord Jagannath Temple, Balliguda and has recorded specific reasons for arriving at a satisfaction that a strong prima facie case exists against the Petitioners. Such an exercise cannot be characterised as arbitrary, capricious, or without application of judicial mind.

The contention that the Petitioners stand exonerated by reason of the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the final charge sheet loses sight of the settled position that a charge sheet is merely the opinion of the police based on the material collected during investigation and does not have the effect of a judicial finding. The evidence recorded during trial being distinct in character and tested to an extent through the process of examination, stands on a different footing altogether and it is that evidence which the Sessions Judge was required to and did in fact, examine while passing the order impugned.

The plea that the order dated 19.10.2023 was not passed on merit, in view of the liberty granted to the Petitioners in CRLMC No.273 of 2024 to file a fresh petition, does not advance the case of the Petitioners any further, inasmuch as grant of such liberty, by itself, does not amount to a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned therein, nor does it dilute the reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while summoning the Petitioners.

So far as the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya is concerned, this Court is in agreement with the submission that the outcome of the Criminal Revision preferred by a co-accused cannot operate as a binding precedent qua the present Petitioners who were admittedly not party to the said proceeding. However, that circumstance alone does not entitle the Petitioners to a more favourable consideration since the evidentiary basis for summoning both the said co-accused and the present Petitioners emanates from the very same set of depositions which this Court finds to have been properly appreciated by the Trial Court.

It is trite that this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the corresponding provision under Section 528 BNSS, does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Trial Court nor does it enter into a roving inquiry to weigh the sufficiency or credibility of evidence as that exercise is the exclusive domain of the Trial Court upon conclusion of trial. Interference at this stage would be warranted only where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The present case does not fall within any such exceptional category since the order impugned is founded upon sworn testimony of multiple witnesses consistently pointing towards the involvement of the Petitioners.

The submissions touching upon long-standing political rivalry and enmity between the families of the informant and the Petitioners, at best, constitute matters of defence to be tested during trial through cross-examination and cannot furnish a ground for scuttling the proceedings at the threshold, particularly when independent witnesses have deposed to the existence of a motive directly connected with the dispute over temple properties.

For the reasons aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in S.T. Case Nos. 57 and 58 of 2023, summoning the Petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference, and consequently, the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners cannot be countenanced.

In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, this Court arrives at the following conclusions;

a. The present CRLMC, though made as a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in S.T. Case Nos. 57 and 58 of 2023, is in effect, a challenge to the order dated 19.10.2023 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the same has to be tested on the touchstone of the principles governing exercise of that power. In fact, non-inclusion of the Petitioners in the preliminary and final charge sheets and the opinion expressed therein by the Investigating Officer does not operate as a bar upon the Trial Court's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person as an accused on the basis of evidence surfacing during trial.

b. The order dated 19.10.2023 reflects a reasoned and independent application of judicial mind by the learned Sessions Judge, based on a cumulative appreciation of the depositions of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12, and PW-14, and discloses the existence of a strong prima facie case against the Petitioners.

c. The liberty granted to the Petitioners in CRLMC No.273 of 2024 to file a fresh petition does not amount to any adjudication on the merits of the order dated 19.10.2023, and does not assist the case of the Petitioners.

d. The decision rendered in the Criminal Revision preferred by the co-accused Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya is not binding on the present Petitioners, but the evidentiary foundation being common, no different view is warranted in their case.

e. The pleas of long-standing enmity, political rivalry, and mala fide raised by the Petitioners are matters that touch upon the defence and are liable to be tested during trial, hence, do not, at this stage, furnish sufficient ground for invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

f. The allegations and the material on record, taken at face value, disclose the commission of the alleged offences, and the case does not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting quashing of proceedings as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.(supra)

g. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners does not amount to an abuse of the process of court and the question of their culpability or otherwise is a matter to be considered by the learned Trial Court upon conclusion of the trial, on the basis of evidence adduced before it.

In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, or the order taking cognizance in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. This Court considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and has perused the case records, including the preliminary charge sheet, the final charge sheet, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023, and the evidence of the material witnesses referred to therein and comes to the conclusion that the CRLMC is devoid of merit, hence, stands dismissed.

The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial against the Petitioners in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, which have been made solely for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial court in any manner, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.