Abuse of process and lack of elements for charges under IPC Sections 504 and 506 established by the court.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.327/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC .

2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Divya K., appearing for the petitioners, and the learned HCGP Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 - complainant though served long ago remains unrepresented even as on date.

3. On 07.01.2026, this Court had passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

Awaiting representation of the respondent- complainant, as a last chance, list this matter on 28.01.2026 Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."

On 07.01.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent-complainant. The matter was directed to be listed on 28.01.2026. The matter is listed today. Even today there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2- complainant.

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8, and respondent No.2 - complainant is a Trustee and Secretary of Anjuman Al Arfath Education Trust. The petitioners are said to be the office bearers of the said trust. A private complaint comes to be registered against these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C on 11.04.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 419, 420, 463, 464, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code . The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation and which becomes a crime in Crime No.201/2023. The police conduct investigation and file the charge sheet, not for the aforesaid glorified offences, but only for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC . Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that even the allegations which were alleged against the petitioners in the crime stage would not bring out the ingredients of the offences so alleged. Learned counsel would seek to project that accused No.1 had instituted a civil suit in OS.No.576/2023 against the complainant seeking permanent injunction, and once the notice was served in the said suit, the complainant registers the subject private complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, it was an act of wreaking vengeance against these petitioners for having registered the civil suit in which notice was issued.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are found in the allegations in the case at hand. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and have perused the material on record.

8. The petitioners and respondent No.1 - complainant belong to the same trust. A suit for permanent injunction is instituted by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in O.S. No.576/2023 against the complainant seeking to restrain from entering into the trust. Notice was issued in the said suit and objections were directed to be filed to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, filed before the Civil Court. Immediately thereafter springs the subject complaint on 11.04.2023. The subject complaint was made before the learned Magistrate, who refers the matter for investigation under 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The reference leads to the registration of the aforesaid crime. The crime