- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10140 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SARASWATHI, W/OF KARTIKAYAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO. 95, 3RD CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024. 2. KARTHIKAYAN, S/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO 95, 3RD CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIREESHA J.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. HARSHACHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO. 23, 2ND MAIN, GANGANAGARA EXTENSION, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DR. P.M. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15904/2020 ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively in Crime No.157/2020 of Yelahanka Police Station, pending in C.C. No.15904/2020 on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, have preferred this petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. 2. FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 8 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 143, 147, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 3. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that accused Nos.1 to 4 in the very same crime preferred W.P. No.2581/2024 before this Court and the said petition was allowed, vide common order dated 28.01.2025 and the impugned proceedings against the said accused are quashed. 5. A copy of the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in W.P No.2582/2024 and connected matters is produced. 6. Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the said order are extracted here under:- 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the dispute between the parties is essentially predominantly and overwhelmingly of a civil nature/character and was the subject matter of W.P.No. 1671/2024, which came up before this Court and disposed of vide final order dated 31.05.2024, which reads as under: "This petition by the respondents in Mis.No.655/2020 on the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the Trial Court") is directed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 whereby the said petition filed by respondent No.1- Trust under Section 92 CPC seeking leave/permission to institute a suit was allowed by the Trial Court 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the material on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 claiming to be a Public Charitable Trust, instituted a suit seeking various reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners entered appearance and contested the petition, pursuant to which, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order granting leave in favour of respondent No.1-Trust to institute a suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order granting leave in favour of respondent No.1, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the proposed plaint in the suit in order to point out that the reliefs sought for therein are beyond the scope and ambit of Section 92 CPC and consequently, the Trial Court committed an error in permitting/granting leave in favour of respondent No.1-Trust to institute a suit. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1-Trust in addition to supporting the impugned order has also contended that even assuming that the suit under Section 92 of CPC was not maintainable, it is open for the Trial Court as well as this Court to treat the suit having filed under Section 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 CPC and direct the Trial Court decide the suit, which has already been registered as O.S.No.2071/2022 as a regular suit and for disposal in accordance with law as held by this Court in the case of Dr. Narasimhalu Nandini Memorial Education Trust and another Vs. Janatha Trust W.P.No.203194/2022 dated 19.06.2023. It is also pointed out that in addition to O.S.No.2071/2022, which was registered pursuant to the impugned order, another suit in O.S.No.25645/2022 has been instituted by the respondent and both the suits may be disposed of in accordance with law. 6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1-Trust, even assuming that the contentions urged by the petitioner were to be accepted and the relief sought for by respondent No.1- Trust are held to be beyond the scope and ambit of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 Section 92 CPC, it is perfectly legal and permissible to treat both the suits having been filed under Section 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 CPC and to be tried as a regular suit as held by this Court in the case of Dr. Narasimhalu Nandini Memorial Education Trust (supra), wherein it is held as under: "11. A perusal of the various matters enumerated under Sub Section (1) of Section 92 of CPC would indicate that a suit relating to removal of a trustee, appointment of new trustee, vesting the property ina trustee, direction to a trustee, accounts and enquiries of the trust, usage of the trust property for a particular purpose, settling the claim, etc. is carried under sub section (ii) of Section 92 of CPC. 12. Clause-(h) is a residuary provision which deals with granting of any such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. This residuary provision can only relate to the subject matter enumerated in Clauses-(a) to (g) and would have to be read in conjunction with the said clause. Clause (h) has no independent existence nor does it provide for an independent subject matter so as to make it applicable to a suit for permanent injunction filed by the trust against a third party. It is only in respect of the subject matter at Clause-(a) to (g), that leave of the Court is required to be obtained and in connection thereto, any such other further reliefs in the interest of justice or in the nature of the case may also be sought for. 13. The said Section 92 of CPC has been introduced for the purposes of proper administration of a trust and as such, deals with the internal management of the trust and the management of the trust properties. 14. The suit filed by the trust against a third party as done in this case, in my considered opinion would not come within the purview of Section 92 of CPC. The said suit having been filed in the normal operation of the trust for the trust to preserve and protect its properties and or claim such other properties and not relating to the management of the trust would be outside the purview of Section 92 of CPC. If such an interpretation is taken up, then a public charitable trust would never be able to file any suit for bare injunction, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 recovery of money, specific performance, declaration or the like, thus, impending effective functioning and operation of the trust. 15. In that view of the matter the trial Court having considered several aspects relating to the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants of the suit and held that Section 92 of CPC would not apply for the reasons stated hereinabove and that stated bythe trial Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting leave in favour of respondent No.1-Trust by treating the suit having been filed under Section 92 CPC deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be given to the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon both the suits in O.S.Nos.2071/2022 and 25645/2022 in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of. ii. The impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Mis. Pet.No.655/2020 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The Trial Court is directed to treat both O.S.Nos.2071/2022 and 25645/2022 filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner as regular suits under Section 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 GPC and proceed further in accordance with law. iv. The Trial Court is directed to withdraw O.S.No.25645/2022 from the file of the 75th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, Mayo Hall unit, and transfer the same to the Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to be consolidated, clubbed, tried and disposed of together along with O.S.No.2071/2022 in accordance with law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12994 CRL.P No. 10140 of 2023 v. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same." 4. As is clear from the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the dispute between the parties is pending before the Civil Court and consequently, the question of continuation of aforesaid proceedings against both parties does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases, which deserves to be quashed" 7. The proceeding against accused Nos.1 to 4 is already quashed. In view of the same, proceedings against the present petitioners is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings in C.C. No.15904/2020 on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 is quashed. iii. I.A. No.1/2024 is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK