Karnataka High Court
Shri Ramachandra G B vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10473 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMACHANDRA G.B.
S/O. BHARMAPPA G.
AGE 54 YEARS
OCC: BANKER
R/O. SRINIKHETANA, NO.4
MURUMANEHALLI HALLI ROAD KOTE
CHIKMAGALURU-577 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALLOLI SHIVRAJ SIDDARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JAVAGAL POLICE STATION
Digitally TQ: ARASIKERE, DIST: HASSAN-573 125
signed by
LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED THROUGH
Location: THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court
of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SHRI WAIKHOM LOYANGOMBA
AGE 36 YEARS
OCC: MANAGER SBI JAVAGAL
OFFICE ADDRESS: SBI JAVAGAL BRANCH
JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE
TALUKA AND DISTRICT HASSAN-573 125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1;
SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.874/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, ARSIKERE ARISING
OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.89/2019 OF JAVAGAL POLICE FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 409
AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned
High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1/ State,
learned counsel for respondent no.2 /First Informant and
perused the material on record.
2. This criminal petition is filed by petitioner/ accused
no.2 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.874/2021 pending on the file of
the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, arising out of
Crime No.0089/2019 registered by Javagal Police Station, for
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. On the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent
No.2 - Waikhom Loyangomba, Manager of State Bank of
India, Javagal Branch, an FIR came to be registered on
02.08.2019 against Accused No.1 - Former Bank Manager,
and Accused No.2 - petitioner, working as Chief Associate in
the said branch.
4. Charge sheet is filed against both the accused for
offence punishable under section 409 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC .
5. The case of the prosecution is that one late
Sadashiva Pillai of Javagal Village had deposited his gold
ornaments in the locker facility of Javagal branch of State
Bank of India. The customer had kept two separate packets
of gold ornaments in the locker. On verification, it was found
that one of the packets containing gold ornaments weighing
about 63.00 grams of a gold chain, 107.30 grams of four
gold bangles, and 10.30 grams of gold ear studs (two pairs),
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
totaling 180.60 grams, was missing from the locker. The
locker in question could be opened only by using two
separate keys--one held by the Bank Manager and the other
by the Chief Associate. At the relevant time, Accused No.1,
Branch Manager, and Accused No.2/petitioner, Chief
Associate, were in charge of the locker keys. The locker
could only be operated jointly in the presence of both key
holders. During inspection on 23.07.2019, when the locker
was checked, the gold ornaments weighing 180.60 grams
were found missing. When accused Nos.1 and 2 were
questioned, they failed to provide any satisfactory
explanation. Therefore, it is alleged that both of them had
misused their official position and dishonestly committed
criminal breach of trust and cheating in respect of the said
gold ornaments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioner are wholly misconceived and amount to a gross
abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
petitioner, who was serving as Chief Associate in the
concerned branch, has been falsely implicated merely to
shield the systemic lapses and administrative negligence of
higher officials of the bank. The complaint and the charge
sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 409 and
420 of IPC, as there is no material to establish entrustment
of the alleged missing gold ornaments to the petitioner or
any dishonest inducement on his part. It is further contended
that the FIR is vitiated by unexplained delay, and that the
petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave during the
relevant period, thereby negating the possibility of his
involvement in the alleged acts.
7. It is further contended that contemporaneous
documentary evidence, including the In and Out Register and
CCTV footage dated 01.07.2019, which was produced during
departmental enquiry, clearly exonerate the petitioner, as the
footage does not depict him handling or removing the
missing ornaments. However, such exculpatory material has
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
been suppressed by the prosecution. The selective
implication of the petitioner and the then Branch Manager,
while omitting other responsible officials, is alleged to be
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It is therefore submitted that the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fides, and continuation thereof
would amount to harassment and abuse of process of the
Court. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned proceedings be
quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the following judgments; the relevant paras are
extracted:
i) S.W.Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
Anr. reported in 2002 1 SCC 241.
"8. ................... Every breach of trust may not result in a
penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is
evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. An
act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of
which the person wronged may seek his redress for
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea
gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.
9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach
of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with
any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a)
dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to
his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that
property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in
violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal
contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there
should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be
induced to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b)
the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by
(ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.
26. In the second case also, this Court has expressed that:
(SCC p. 272, para 2)
"2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as
envisaged in Section 482 CrPC to have the complaint or the
charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule
and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the
prosecution. ... In the event, however, the court on a
perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the
allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the
face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as
alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to
the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as
is required under the law."
Even from this case also, it is clear that if no offence is
made out from the allegations made in the complaint, there
should be no hesitation in exercising power under Section
482 CrPC to pass appropriate order."
ii) HDFC Bank Limited v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in 2024 INSC 807.
"20. For bringing out the offence under the ambit of
Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following
ingredients:
(a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since
inception;
(b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest;
and
(c) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement.
21. The appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a
question of mens rea does not arise. However, even
reading the FIR and the complaint at their face value, there
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
is nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff
members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to
deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea
existed at the time of such inducement. As such, the
ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC
would not be available.
22. Insofar as the provisions of Section 409 IPC is
concerned, the following ingredients will have to be made
out:
(a) That there has been any entrustment with the property,
or with any dominion over property on a person in the
capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.;
(b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in
respect of that property.
23. For bringing out the case under criminal breach of
trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with
whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly
misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or
dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property."
iii) Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
reported in 2025 INSC 614.
"9. The FIR has been registered under sections 406 and
420 of the IPC. The scope and expanse of these sections is
better appreciated in the company of sections 405 and 415
of the IPC. This court in the case of Radheyshyam v. State
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
of Rajasthan, culled out the following ingredients to
constitute the criminal breach of trust:
"11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the
following ingredients must exist:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted
with dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or
converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly
used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any
other person to do so; and
iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal
should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the
mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any
legal contract.
9.1 This court, while discussing the expression
"entrustment" in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
observed that it carries with it the implication that the
person handing over any property or on whose behalf that
property is handed over to another, continues to be its
owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may
have different implications in different contexts. In its most
general significance, all its imports is handing over the
possession for some purpose which may not imply the
conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership
or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which
criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed,
must be in some person other than the accused and the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
latter must hold it on account of some person or in some
way for his benefit."
iv) Bhim Sain Arora & Ors. v. State in
Crl.M.C.1186/2023 & Crl.M.A.4551/2023 DD
27.08.2025.
"41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and
the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine
one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the
time of inducement should be looked into which may be
judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the
subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time
when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the
offence.
42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property
must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have
dominion over it. The property in respect of which the
offence of breach of trust has been committed must be
either the property of some person other than the accused
or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of
some other person. The accused must hold that property
on trust of such other person. Although the offence ie the
offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in
basic concept.
43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust
and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary
at the time of making a false or misleading representation
i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof
of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach
of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same.
Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or
dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver
any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot
co-exist simultaneously."
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent/State vehemently
opposed the petition and contended that the materials
collected during investigation, including the statements of
witnesses and documentary records of the branch, clearly
disclose prima facie involvement of the petitioner along with
Accused No.1 in the misappropriation of the gold ornaments
kept in the locker by the customer. It is submitted that both
the accused were the joint custodians of the locker keys, and
the missing of the ornaments could not have occurred
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
without their knowledge or participation. The contentions of
the petitioner regarding lack of entrustment, medical leave,
or alleged suppression of CCTV footage are matters of
defence which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the charge
sheet contains specific and detailed allegations supported by
material evidence, and therefore, the disputed questions of
fact require full-fledged trial. It is argued that at this nascent
stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate
the sufficiency of evidence, and that the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/
first informant, has filed statement of objections opposing the
petition. It is contended that the petitioner, while serving as
Chief Associate at the State Bank of India, Javagal Branch,
between 18.06.2018 and 24.07.2019, had failed to adhere to
the joint custody protocol governing the operation of the
strong room and gold safe. It is specifically alleged that the
petitioner had entered the strong room and operated the gold
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
safe on 01.07.2019, contrary to the prescribed procedure,
and had surreptitiously removed a packet containing gold
ornaments pledged by one late Sadashiva Pillai. It is further
stated that the petitioner had subsequently admitted his act
in writing before the internal investigating officer, and that on
account of his misconduct, the Bank was compelled to
compensate the legal heirs of the deceased borrower to the
extent of ₹7.74 lakhs.
11. It is further contended that an internal
investigation was conducted by the Bank, during which the
petitioner, in the presence of the Regional Manager and Chief
Manager of the Regional Business Office, Chickmagalur, gave
a written statement dated 31.07.2019 admitting that he had
taken the said ornaments from the locker and misplaced
them. The enquiry report categorically concluded that the
petitioner had violated the joint custody norms with a
fraudulent intent. Based on the said findings, departmental
proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge sheet dated
26.02.2020, and upon full-fledged enquiry, the Enquiry
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
Officer held the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct
resulting in financial loss to the Bank. The disciplinary
authority, concurring with the findings, imposed the
punishment of dismissal without notice by order dated
25.02.2021. It is submitted that the CCTV footage
corroborates the petitioner's single-handed operation of the
gold safe on 01.07.2019, and therefore, the allegations of
false implication or mala fides are wholly untenable.
Accordingly, respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the
petition.
12. The complaint averments are that one Late
Sadashiva Pillai, resident of Javagal Village, had availed
locker facility at the State Bank of India, Javagal Branch,
wherein he had kept certain gold ornaments in two separate
packets. Upon verification conducted on 23.07.2019, one of
the packets containing gold ornaments weighing about
180.60 grams was found missing. The said locker could be
operated only by using two keys-- one retained by the
Branch Manager and the other by the Chief Associate. At the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
relevant point of time, Accused No.1 was functioning as the
Branch Manager, and Accused No.2 / petitioner, Chief
Associate, were the joint custodians of the said keys. On
being questioned, both of them failed to offer any
satisfactory explanation for the missing ornaments. It is,
therefore, alleged that they have misused their official
position and committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.
13. The allegations made in the complaint and the
materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose
the commission of cognizable offence punishable under
Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The specific allegations against the Petitioner indicate
that while discharging his duties as Chief Associate, he had
unauthorisedly operated the gold safe in the Bank's strong
room single-handedly, contrary to the prescribed joint
custody procedure, resulting in misappropriation of gold
ornaments pledged by the customers. It is not disputed that
in the departmental enquiry, petitioner has been found guilty
of serious misconduct. The contentions raised by the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
Petitioner relate to factual aspects touching upon the merits
of the case which are matters for trial. At this stage, this
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into the truth
or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet. The
settled law is that where the allegations in the FIR or charge
sheet disclose the commission of an offence, the proceedings
cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the accused
has a defence available which requires appreciation of
evidence.
14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the well-settled parameters governing the exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been
held that interference at the nascent stage of prosecution
should be in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do
not disclose any offence or are manifestly attended with mala
fides. The present case does not fall within any of the
exceptions carved out in the said decision.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
15. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind
Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, the Supreme
Court observed:
"While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
High Court is not to act as if it were conducting a trial or
inquiry. Whether the allegations are true or false is a matter
to be tested during trial and not in a petition seeking
quashing."
16. In the case of State of Odisha v. Pratima
Mohanty and Ors., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 703, has
held that:
"8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare
cases. As per the settled proposition of law while examining
an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court
cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings
should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section
482 CrPC when after a thorough investigation the charge-
sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or
considering the application under Section 482CrPC the
courts are not required to go into the merits of the
allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
HC-KAR
mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section
482 CrPC are very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous
and more diligent duty on the Court."
17. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is of
the opinion that there is a prima facie case against the
petitioner and the allegations are supported by documentary
evidence including the internal investigation report etc. These
aspects require adjudication during trial and cannot be
summarily discarded at this stage.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal
Petition stands dismissed.
Observations are confined to the petition.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
HB
