to show that the petitioners herein are indulging either fish rearing or dumping chicken and mutton waste in open ponds so as to attract birds flying in the area or that they are involved in littering the surroundings. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, except the further statement of the complainant, there is no other material to show that the petitioners herein are engaged in fish rearing activity either at Razakpalya or in Budansabpalya. On the other hand, the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33488/2011 and connected matters indicate that the petitioners themselves had submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries to take action against illegal fish farming at various ponds in Bagalur Tank and surrounding areas. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Budansabpalya and Razakpalya fall within Bagalur Tank area. There seems to be some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners themselves had complained against the illegal activities that were carried out in the surrounding area, in the absence of clinching evidence to show that the petitioners were indulging in the very same activities, in my view, 5 initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained. As held in Bhajan Lal’s case, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. As the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable material in proof of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged activities, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal, baseless and abuse of the process of Court and cannot be allowed to be continued. Hence, the following order:
