Karnataka High Court
Shri. N S Jayaram vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10902 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. N S JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE N. SUBBARAYA,
# X-174, SOMWARPET TOWN,
M.D. BLOCK, SOMWARPET,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
2. SMT. VANITA P
W/O N.S JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
# X-174, MAHADESHWARA BLOCK,
Digitally SOMWARPET TOWN, SOMWARPET,
signed by KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
REKHA R
...PETITIONERS
Location:
High Court (BY SRI. KARTHIK.N, ADVOCATE)
of
Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SOMWARPET POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. K.M IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.A MOHAMMED,
PWD CONTRACTOR,
R/A HOUSE NO. 108
HOUSING BOARD FRONT,
4TH WARD, KUSHALANAGAR-571234.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.M.H.HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.125/2023 DATED 01.08.2023 FILED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT SOMWARPET POLICE STATION PURSUANT TO
THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.08.2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, SOMWARAPET,
KODAGU DIST., FOR THE OFFENCE 465, 471, 420 AND 34 OF
IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and
2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, for quashing of criminal proceedings
initiated against them in Cr.No.125/2023 of respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
No.1 PS for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. In support of the petition, petitioners have
contended that they are innocent and law abiding citizens.
They have been falsely implicated. The security deposit
and subject of dispute is legally registered in their names.
They have right to claim the deposit and withdraw it. The
complainant is not having any legal rights over the
deposit. He is illegally trying to withdraw the same. The
allegations made in the FIR taken on the face value
constitute a civil dispute. The legal course available to the
complainant is to file a civil suit. Petitioners have followed
the legal procedure when withdrawing the security deposit.
Without any application of mind the concerned police
included the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
There is a criminal case pending against the complainant
for the punishable under Section 138 of NI Act regarding
the cheque bounce and judgment is awaited. To exert
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
pressure on the petitioners this complaint is filed.
Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court and hence, the petition.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader
representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel
for respondent No.2 would submit that complainant is a
PWD contractor. He is doing Civil contracting work since
25 years at PWD and Zilla Panchayat engineering division
in different places of Kodugu district. As there was some
problem, since 2013 he applied for tender in the name of
accused No.1 Jayaram and his wife i.e., accused No.2
Vanitha and secured sub-contract for a sum of
Rs.5,95,00,000/-. Out of said amount, 40% was invested
by accused Nos.1 and 2 and 60% invested by him. He also
kept Rs.48,00,000/- by way of security deposit in the
name of accused Nos.1 and 2. The work was to be
executed within a period of one year.
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
4. Accordingly, he has executed the work and final
bill is also settled. When he requested for release of
security deposit of Rs.48,00,000/- he was directed to
approach the office of Rural Development Water Supply.
When he approached the said office and enquired with the
case worker, he was told that accused Nos.1 and 2 already
availed work completion certificate and now why he is
insisting. On suspicion, on 01.06.2023 he enquired with
Somawarpeth Chowdlu branch about the certificate and
came to know that within two months accused Nos.1 and 2
have returned the certificate and got the money
transferred to their accounts. When complainant checked
with the bank, he realised that security deposit certificate
produced by accused Nos.1 and 2 is not the original but a
colour zerox.
4.1. It is further submitted that the period of
execution of the work is one year. Only after execution of
the work and settlement of the final bill, the
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
Superintending Engineer would address letter to the
Executing Engineer to release the security deposit. Only on
the basis of such letter, the Executive Engineer would
order for release of amount. The bank has not received
any such letter. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have produced a
colour xerox of the original certificate to the office of Rural
Development Water Supply and got the amount released
to their accounts and thereby caused loss to the
Government and also to the complainant and hence the
complaint.
4.2 Based on the complainant case is registered
against the petitioners and investigation is taken up. The
allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are very
serious. Matter required a full fledged trial to unravel the
truth and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that complainant is a civil
contractor. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and
2 are also civil contractors. Complainant has claimed that
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
due to some problem, complainant could not apply for
contract in his name and therefore, during 2013 he applied
for tender in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 for a work
worth Rs.5,95,00,000/-. The said work was executed for
which accused Nos.1 and 2 invested 40% and
complainant invested 60%. It is specifically contended by
the complainant that for execution for the said work he
deposited Rs.48 lakhs by way of security deposit, which
was to be withdrawn only after execution of the work.
7. After execution of the work, when he tried to get
the security deposit, he came to know that already
accused Nos.1 and 2 got released the security deposit on
the basis of colour xerox copy of the security deposit
certificate and thereby accused persons committed the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 420 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. These specific allegations made against
the accused persons are required to be investigated and
truth of the same is to be unraveled. It requires a full
fledged investigation by the concerned police. In the light
NC: 2025:KHC:37264
HC-KAR
of the prima facie case made out against accused Nos.1
and 2 the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and as
such this petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly
the following;
ORDER
Petition filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is
hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
