- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31882 WP No. 3068 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: ADITYA SINHA SON OF C.N. SINHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT G-15/10, DLF PHASE-1, SIKANDERPUR GHOSI, (68) GURGAN, DLF QE, HARAYANA - 122 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: KELACHANDRA JOSEPH GEORGE S/O KELACHANDRA CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT PENTHOUSE, ST ANDREWS BUILDING, GOLF LINK SOFTWARE PARK, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 071 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP C.T, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC.528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31882 WP No. 3068 of 2025 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 56903/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 499 AND 500 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ARISING OUT OF PCR 61 OF 2019 PENDING BEFORE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. IN SO FAR PETITIONERS CONCERN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.56903/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Sandeep C.T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31882 WP No. 3068 of 2025 3. The respondent/complainant institutes proceedings before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. On setting up of the Special Court, the matter is transferred to the Court of Session for the purpose of decision of the issue in the lis. The Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons to the accused. This is what is called in question in the case at hand. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the matter ought not to have been placed before the Court of Session, as the learned Magistrate had to deal with it, as the offence was the one punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. 5. In identical circumstances, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the co-ordinate Bench in terms of its order dated 19.02.2026 in Crl.P.No.4209/2021 has remitted the matter back to the Magistrate's Court constituted by the very same order constituting the Regular Magistrate. The co- ordinate Bench has held as follows: "The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is accused no.4 before the trial court seeking for setting aside of the order dated 17.01.2020, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31882 WP No. 3068 of 2025 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner/accused no.4. 2. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of entirety of proceedings in Spl.CC 48/2020 pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-91) at Bangalore. 3. At the time of hearing of the matter, it was pointed out that order of cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge which was the Designated Special Court. The offences involved are Section 499 and 500 of IPC, with respect to such offences cognizance could have been taken only by the Magistrate in terms of Section 190 Cr.P.C. Though there was some ambiguity at the initial stage where Special Courts were set up to try the offences involving elected members, subsequent clarification by the Apex Court is to the effect that the Special Court would be the jurisdictional court, which would mean if the offences is to be tried by a Magistrate, then the court of Magistrate would be competent to try the offences. 4. In the present case, Section 499 and 500 IPC are triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, the proceedings before the Sessions Court were not permissible. 5. Accordingly, all proceedings subsequent to 25.11.2019 are set aside and the complaint is to be considered afresh post 25.11.2019 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also clarified that as the complainant is the only elected member and no accused are elected members, the case need not be tried by the Designated Courts for M.P., MLA and elected members, however the proceedings are to be tried by the jurisdictional Magistrate. All contentions of both sides are kept open. 6. The court may consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any orders passed or proceedings made till this date. 7. In light of the present order noticing the defect in taking cognizance and issuance of process even insofar as other accused are concerned, who are not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31882 WP No. 3068 of 2025 present before the court, the proceedings would have to be re-commenced from the same stage as ordered in the present petition. However, it is clarified that proceedings against accused no.3 have culminated in setting aside of the proceedings against him and such closure would not be disturbed. Accordingly, the proceedings against accused nos.1, 2 and 4 may be proceeded with in terms of the above discussion. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of." In the light of the said order passed by the co-ordinate Bench, the matter is now remitted back to the concerned Court from the stage of answering the complaint/taking of cognizance, as the case would be. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20