Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kusuma vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
CRL.P No. 101583 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101583 OF 2020
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. KUSUMA W/O. MAHABALESH PATIL,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PINJAR ONI, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-582 114.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION,
PIN-580 011.
2. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA JAVALI,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. CHIEF MANAGER,
SRI. CHANNABASAVASWAMY SOUHARDHA
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
PATTANA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITA,
RAKESH HARIHAR
S Location:
HIGH
GANGAVATI, R/O. SIDDAPUR BASANNA EXTENSION,
HARIHAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-580 011.
BENCH
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYS THAT QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 27/10/2020
PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN
CR.REV. PETITION NO.18/2016 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
GANGAVATHI IN C.C. NO.377/2013 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420 OF IPC R/W 34 REGISTERED BY THE
GANGAVATHI POLICE STATION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
CRL.P No. 101583 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.02.2016
passed in CC No. 377 of 2013 by the Court of Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, which is confirmed in Criminal
Revision Petition No.18 of 2016 by the Court of First
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in
CC No.377 of 2013 pending before the Court of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, arising out of Crime
No.116 of 2012 registered by Gangavathi Town Police
Station for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420
read with 34 of IPC. In the said proceedings, the petitioner
had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before
the trial Court seeking discharge. The said application was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
dismissed by the trial Court vide order impugned which was
challenged by the petitioner before the jurisdictional
Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.18 of 2016
which was dismissed on 27.08.2020. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that
petitioner was not even arraigned as accused in the FIR and
no allegations were made against the petitioner in the first
information which was submitted by the respondent.
Accused no.1 who is the husband of the petitioner, was the
employee of the respondent no.2 bank. Allegation against
him is that during the course of discharge of his duty for the
period from 26.03.2004 to 08.05.2009, he had totally
misappropriated a sum of ₹35,26,034/- and out of the
aforesaid amount a sum of ₹5,50,000/- was transferred to
the account of the partnership firm known as
Sri. Siddharameshwara Industries of which the petitioner is
also a partner along with her husband. Only for the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
reason, petitioner is also arraigned as accused No.2 in the
impugned criminal proceedings. He submits that the
petitioner had no role in the management of the aforesaid
partnership firm, nor she was aware of the money that was
transferred to the account of the partnership firm by her
husband, who was the employee of respondent no.2-bank
and also the partner of the aforesaid partnership firm.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned counsel for
respondent no.2 have opposed the petition. They submit
that Courts below have concurrently held against the
petitioner and therefore there is no scope for interference in
the present case. They submit that the prima facie case is
found against the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences
and therefore the Courts below are justified in rejecting her
prayer for discharge. Accordingly, pray to dismiss the
petition.
6. In the typed first information that is filed by
respondent No.2 on 17.09.2012, it is alleged that accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
no.1 Mahabalesh Patil was serving as an accountant in the
respondent bank for the period from 30.07.1995 to
01.07.2004. Thereafter, he was serving as Chief Manager in
the said bank.
7. It is alleged in the first information that during
the period from 2004 to 2009, accused No.1 had indulged in
committing various misappropriations in the bank and
totally he had caused loss to the tune of ₹.35,26,034/- to
the bank. Out of the aforesaid amount of ₹.35,26,034/-, an
amount of ₹.5,50,000/- was transferred to the bank
account of the partnership firm known as
Shri Siddarameshwar Industries, in which the aforesaid
Mahabalesh Patil and his wife, who is the petitioner herein
are partners. In the first information, it is alleged that by
transferring the aforesaid amount of ₹.5,50,000/- to the
aforesaid partnership firm, accused No.1 had
misappropriated the said amount and there is no allegation
against the petitioner. In the charge sheet which is now
filed, it is alleged that after the aforesaid amount of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
₹.5,50,000/- was transferred to the account of the aforesaid
partnership firm, accused No.1 had obtained signature of
the petitioner herein on the cheque leaf of the aforesaid
partnership firm and thereafter had misappropriated the
said amount. There is no such allegation even in the charge
sheet against the petitioner, which would attract the alleged
offences against her.
8. Undisputedly, the petitioner is not an employee
of respondent No.2 - Bank and therefore the offence
punishable under Section 409 of the IPC cannot be invoked
against her. So far as the Offence punishable under Section
420 of the IPC is concerned, the allegation of fraudulently
transferring the amount to the bank account of the
partnership firm and thereafter, misappropriating the same
by taking the signature of the petitioner is found in the
charge sheet only as against accused No.1. The role of the
petitioner in the alleged offence is not at all mentioned in
the charge sheet. Undisputedly, there is no allegation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
against the petitioner in the first information which was
submitted by respondent No.2 - Bank.
9. The material on record would go to show that the
prosecution has not even collected any material to show
that the petitioner was a partner of the aforesaid
partnership firm and she had an active role in the
management of the said firm. Under the circumstances,
merely on the allegation that she had signed the cheque of
the partnership firm based on which accused No.1 had
withdrawn the amount transferred by him to the bank
account of the firm in the capacity as the Chief Manager of
respondent No.2 - Bank, the petitioner cannot be
prosecuted for the alleged offences. Learned Magistrate as
well as the revisional Court have failed to appreciate this
aspect of the matter and have erred in rejecting the
discharge application filed by the petitioner. The Court while
considering the discharge application filed by the accused is
required to examine that whether a prima facie case for the
alleged offence is made out against the accused in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11487
HC-KAR
charge sheet and in the absence of prima facie material, if
the accused is asked to stand trial for the alleged offences,
then the application filed by such accused seeking discharge
needs to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 23.02.2016 passed in C.C.
No.377 of 2013 by the Court of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, which is
confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition
No.18 of 2016 by the Court of First
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Koppalare set aside and consiquently the
prayer made by the petitioner in her
application filed under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking
discharge is allowed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
VNP para No. 7 to end
CT: BCK
