- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO. 20492 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20489 OF 2022 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 20492/2022 BETWEEN: SHRI. SUBASH CHANDRA MODI S/O LATE MAHANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SITE NO.7, 70, 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR DR. VANDANA P L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 2. THASHILDAR GOVT OFFICIAL GAZZETED, BANGALORE NORTH, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET C.C.NO.17998/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 7TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 341, 504, 506 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.258/15 OF RESPONDENT MAHALAKSMIPURA POLICE STATION ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. IN WP NO. 20489/2022 BETWEEN: SHRI SUBASH CHANDRA MODI S/O LATE MAHANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS SITE NO.7, 70, 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M S SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR DR. VANDANA P L., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MRS. NANDINI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SHRI ASHOKA, R/AT NO.38, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B. G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.25395/2015 ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT IS ANNEXURE-B FIR DATED:1.06.2015 IS ANNEXURE-A AND ALL REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. CMM COURT AT BANGALORE ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER Writ Petition No.20492/2022 is filed by the petitioner- accused under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in C.C. No.17998/2016 arising out of Crime No.258/2015 registered by Mahalakshmipuram police station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 of IPC registered on the complaint of respondent No.2-Tahsildar. 2. Writ Petition No.20489/2022 is filed by the same petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in C.C. No.25395/2015 arising out of Crime No.188/2015 registered by Mahalakshmipuram police station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 respondents-State in both cases and also the de-facto complainant in Writ Petition No.20489/2022. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of Smt. T.S. Nandini, an employee of Dr. M.C. Modi Eye Hospital, a case in Crime No.188/2015 was registered by the respondent police on 01.06.2015. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is the Trustee of Dr. M.C. Modi Public Trust, is said to be assaulted and abused the female employees working in the hospital. It is further alleged that after the death of Dr. M.C. Modi, his son Dr. Amarnath Modi became Managing Trustee and his daughter in law became Co-trustee. During his lifetime, Dr. Amarnath Modi appointed the petitioner as Trustee of the Trust. On 29.05.2015, the present petitioner claiming himself to be the Trustee of the Trust of the hospital came and accused the complainant and all other staff of the Dr. M.C. Modi Eye Hospital by abusing them and stopping them from working and threatened them with dire consequences. The petitioner also asked them to go out of the hospital. It is also alleged that the petitioner said to be stolen computer and other instruments from the hospital. About 39 people went to the police station - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 and the complaint of Smt. Nandini was considered and an FIR was registered and investigation was taken up by the police. 5. During the pendency of investigation in Crime No.188/2015, on the complaint of Tahsildar, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru, another case in Crime No.258/2015 was registered on 16.07.2015 by the same police against petitioner. Initially, the case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 229A of IPC. Later, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these two writ petitions. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the legal heir of the founder trustee. The petitioner is running Dr. M.C. Modi Eye Hospital. The complainant and others were not doing proper work and therefore, he took initiation and asked them to do work. In order to prevent the petitioner from entering into the hospital, the complainant and others filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that, on the same cause of action, there are two complaints filed before - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 the police and two charge sheets came to be filed against the petitioner on two different dates. Therefore, the FIRs and charge sheets require to be quashed. 7. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that though the Tahsildar was appointed by the receiver in the year 2014, subsequently, on an enquiry made by the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere, the present petitioner was appointed as Trustee and the State Government has recognised the petitioner as legal heir of Dr. M.C. Modi Trust. Therefore, the petitioner being a Trustee and legal heir of founder Trust, has not at all committed any offence. Therefore, the aforesaid two FIRs and the charge sheets are not sustainable in law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de- facto complainant submitted that on the complaint filed, the trial has already commenced before the trial court and one witnesses is already examined in Crime No.258/2015 and the Tahsildar has been separately examined. In another case, five witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has not cross examined the witnesses and he is dragging the case for one or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 the other reason. The Tahsildar is appointed by the receiver which has been approved by the State Government. The incident took place on two different dates. The incident cannot be said to be the same incident and therefore, prayed for dismissing the petitions. 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-State submits that FIR was registered by the police in respect of abuse, threat and stopping of work of the employees of the hospital by the petitioner. The employees of the hospital made a complaint to the Union and the Union in turn, complained to Women's Commission. Accordingly, the Women's Commission referred the matter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar looked into the matter and lodged a complaint to the police, who registered the case in Crime No.258/2015. Thereafter, the matter was tried by the trial Court for two different offences. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, perused the records. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 11. Perusal of records, especially Crime No.188/2015 registered on the complaint of staff of Dr. M.C. Modi Eye Hospital, wherein it is stated that the staff were said to be obstructed by the petitioner on 29.05.2015 at 4:30 PM and they were abused in filthy language by the petitioner and computers and other instruments belonging to the hospital were taken away by the petitioner. Therefore, they filed the complaint. During investigation, the police visited the spot and prepared panchanama, where 40 staff have signed on the panchanama and they said to be filed a complaint to the police against the petitioner. The police have considered the first person Smt. T.S. Nandini as the complainant. The police have rightly registered the complaint filed by the staff under the head of Nandini as a complaint cannot be filed by various persons and therefore, others may become witnesses. 12. The investigation was continued on 08.10.2015. In the meanwhile, the staff of the same hospital also approached Union of the hospital and the Union file a complaint to the Women's Commission, Karnataka. In turn, the Women's Commission forwarded the complaint of the Labour Union to the Tahsildar. Accordingly, Tahsildar went to the same police - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 station and filed a complaint which was registered in Crime No.258/2015. The reference and subject matter of the complaint is clearly states that the petitioner said to be harassed the employees of the hospital and therefore, he requested for protection. The complaint also reveals that there was already quarrel between them. The Labour Union sent complaint to the Women's Commission. Thereafter, the Women's Commission forwarded the same to the Tahsildar. Based upon the said complaint, The Tahsildar filed the complaint to the police. On the backside of the complaint, it reveals the complaint sent by the Women's Commission as well as Union was produced by the Tahsildar requesting the police to give protection to women employees and the other employees working in the hospital. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet 11.03.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC 13. A careful reading of the gist of charge sheet reveals that the offences are one and the same. For the same offence committed by the petitioner, the victims have filed complaint to the police in Crime No.188/2015. The said employees also sent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 complaint to the Women's Commission through the Union. In turn, the Women's Commission forwarded the said complaint to the Tahsildar, who filed complaint before the police which is registered in Crime No.258/2015. Though the police have filed charge sheet in both cases, but the allegation submitted in charge sheet is one and the same. Therefore, it is error apparent on the face of the record. For the same offence, two different FIRs have been registered and two charge sheets have been filed, which is against the principles of law. Such being the case, the protection is available to the petitioner-accused under Article 20 of Constitution of India. 14. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.258/2015 arising out of C.C. No.17998/2016 pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offences, filed by the Tahsildar against the petitioner, which is already filed and pending in Crime No.188/2015, is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.258/2015 arising out of C.C. No.17998/2016 is required to be quashed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7241 WP No. 20492 of 2022 C/W WP No. 20489 of 2022 15. The contention of the petitioner that he is subsequently appointed as legal heir of the Trust by the State Government and he is the Trustee, etc, is the matter of trial and the defence available to the petitioner cannot be a ground to quash FIR in Crime No.188/2015. 16. Therefore, writ petition No.20489/2022 filed against the petitioner in Crime No.188/2015 (C.C. No.25395/2015 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru), is hereby dismissed. Writ petition No.20492/2022 filed against the petitioner in Crime No.258/2015 (C.C. No.17998/2016 pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru), is hereby allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.17998/2016, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE CS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:SK