IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI AKASH RANKA S/O LATE MAHAVEER RANKA AGED 42 YEARS NO.7, 30TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011 EMAIL. AKASHRANKA@GAMIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADV.)

AND:

1. SRI ASHOK S. DHARIWAL S/O LATE SUGANCHAND DHARIWAL AGED 71 YEARS NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, SHARVANI Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M PRIDE, MARKET ROAD, BEHIND Location: HIGH COURT OF CANARA BANK, BASAVANAGUDI KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 004 EMAIL. ASHOKDHARIWAL2457@GAMIL.COM

2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADV., FOR R-1;

SRI T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R-2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PLEASED TO MAKE A COMPLAINT IN WRITING TO THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE U/S 340 RT/W 195 Cr.PC FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC 199 AND 209 IPC, COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH ARE PUNISHABLE U/S 193 AND 209 OF IPC AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION AND DECLARATION AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAR HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed under Section 340(2)

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the Registrar to make a complaint in writing to the I Class Magistrate under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 199 and

209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') 2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Petitioner has invoked Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that respondent has falsely instituted a suit in O.S.No.4120/2022 suppressing the culmination of arbitral process and dismissal of appeal under Section 37(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The gist of the complaint is that since respondent withdrew the suit, petitioner had no occasion to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. before the City Civil Court alleging commission of offences affecting the administration of justice. The petitioner contends that while maintaining an application under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C., the civil Court became functus officio in view of the withdrawal of the suit, consequently, petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to move an application under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. before the very Court in which alleged suppression and abuse had occurred. On this premise, petitioner maintains that the withdrawal of the suit should not defeat his right to seek action for perjury and suppression of material facts and therefore, the only remedy left with petitioner is to approach this Court under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.

4. The following points would arise for consideration:

"(i) Whether an application under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and can be entertained by this Court in respect of offences alleged to have been committed in O.S.No.4120/2022 notwithstanding the subsequent withdrawal of the suit in which offences are alleged to have occurred?

(ii) Whether the withdrawal of the suit by the respondent renders the City Civil and Sessions Judge functus officio so as to denude of its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.?

(iii) What Order?"

Finding on Point No.(i) & (ii):

5. The petitioner's primary grievance is that respondent had instituted a suit in O.S.No.4120/2022 by deliberately suppressing material facts. According to the petitioner, the dispute between the parties has already culminated in arbitral proce