as to stop performing Puja. He was asked only to perform Aarti twice, one in the morning and another in the evening. But then still he says that, he has not vacated the premises and performing the Puja. The trust appears to have taken legal recourse by filing suit and it is pending for adjudication. We are more concerned with what happened on 09-11-2013 at about 05.15 p.m. The documents would show that, the Mahotsav was organised, which was organised mainly for ladies and it appears that still respondent No.4 was insisting that he should go in sanctum. If he would have been asked not to go, it will not amount to criminal restraint because it had no criminal intention behind the same. Another fact also required to be noted is that, the copy of the notice in respect of behaviour of the respondent would show that, complaints regarding his behaviour were received by the trust. We need not go into the bylaws of the trust because it would be a civil part and this Court cannot go and make any kind of comment on the civil right, if at all the respondent No.4 is having. As regards change reports those have been produced before the concerned Charity Commissioner, also need not be considered here. Taking into consideration the fact that, even at the time of 2007 when the informant was allegedly asked not to
