[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mallanagouda Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
CRL.P No. 200089 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200089 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MALLANAGOUDA PATIL
S/O NINGANAGOUDA
AGE: 51 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYEE OF K.B.S BANK
NOW WORKING AT K.B.S BANK
BR: SHAHAPUR, TQ: YADGIR
R/O BALAWAT, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
2. PRATAP REDDY
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA @ REDDY PRATAPAGOUDA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI S/O R. SHIVARAMANNAGOUDA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 42 YEARS
KARNATAKA OCC: EMPLOYEE OF K.B.S BANK
BR: LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR
R/O CHETNAHALLI DIST: KURNOOL
NOW WORKING AT K.B.S BANK
BR: RAICHUR, TQ: RAICHUR
3. PRASAD B. S. S/O BALAYYA
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYEE OF K.B.S BANK
BR: LINGASUGUR
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR
R/O GOREBAL CAMP
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
CRL.P No. 200089 of 2026
HC-KAR
DIST: RAICHUR
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION
LINGASUGUR
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103
2. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD S/O SHEIKH HUSSAIN
AGE: 41 YEARS
OCC: OWNER OF SK CELL ZONE
MOBILE SHOP.,
R/O KAKA NAGAR, HUTTI
TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. ANITA M. REDDY ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 12-06-2025 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., LINGASUGUR IN
CC NO.917/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 468,
420, 175 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE HONOURABLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
LINGASUGUR IN CC NO.917/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.11/2025 OF LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION) IN SO FAR AS
ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
CRL.P No. 200089 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.917/2025, arising out of Crime No.11/2025
registered by Lingasugur Police Station, Raichur District,
for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 420 and
175 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), pending
on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent No.1-Police
on 09.01.2025 alleging that, he had availed loan of
Rs.2,00,000/- from Krishna Bheema Samruddi Bank on
18.05.2013 and repaid the entire loan amount through
loan A/c No.90556000000035. Despite, on 27.12.2024 he
received a notice from the said Bank that his loan is still
due. Immediately, he approached the Bank Manager and
staff of the said Bank, then, he came to know that the said
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
Bank Officials forged the records and created a new
account i.e. A/c bearing No.19090136810 in his name and
claimed that he had availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the
strength the said complaint, FIR came to be registered by
the respondent No.1-Police in Crime No.11/2025 on
09.01.2025 for the aforementioned offences.
Subsequently, the respondent No.1-Police investigated the
case and laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the
aforementioned offences. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Apart from urging several contentions learned
counsel for the petitioners contented that, respondent
No.2 availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2013 and
was repaying the same through his loan A/c bearing
No.90556000000035 till the year 2017. Thereafter, during
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
migration of the accounts, his loan A/c
No.90556000000035 was changed and continued in A/c
No.19090136810. However, thereafter, respondent No.2
regularly repaid the loan amount by depositing substantial
amount till the year 2020 to A/c bearing No.19090136810.
5. Later on 16.07.2024, respondent No.2 filed a
representation to the Bank for One Time Settlement (OTS)
of the loan amount pending in Loan A/c No. 19090136810.
Despite a false complaint has been lodged by respondent
No.2 stating that he was totally unaware about
subsequent Loan A/c No.19090136810. In such
circumstances, he submits that in order to overcome from
the defaulted loan amount and also from the criminal case
filed against his father by the petitioner's Bank in Crime
No.259/2020 for having sold the property mortgaged to
the petitioner Bank for the loan transaction of respondent
No.2, this complaint has been lodged as a counter blast.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently contended that, at the outset respondent No.2
disputed the signature in the representation/letter dated
16.07.2024, submitted by him for One Time Settlement.
She also contended that, respondent No.2 repaid the
entire loan amount till 2020. Despite, petitioners-Bank
officials issued legal notice. At that time, it came to the
knowledge of the respondent No.2 that they have forged
and created a new account in the year 2014.
7. She also contended that, in the original suit
filed by the Bank for recovery of loan amount in
O.S.No.50/2021, it has been stated by the Bank
authorities that A/c No.19090136810 is opened in the year
2014 while existence of earlier account. In such
circumstances, she prays that for illegal gain the Bank
authorities, forged the signature of respondent No.2 and
created a new account. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the
petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submission made by learned counsel for the respective
parties and the documents available on record.
9. It could be gathered from the complaint and
charge sheet materials, respondent No.2 has not disputed
the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- availed by him from the
petitioners-Bank in the year 2013 in loan A/c
No.90556000000035. Admittedly, he made repayment of
the loan amount by installments till the year 2017 through
the said account.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed
statement of account details of the respondent No.2,
which depicts that, from the year 2017 till the year 2020,
respondent No.2 made repayment of loan amount though
the A/c bearing No.19090136810 (new account).
11. Further, charge sheet materials reveal, the
respondent No.2 submitted a representation on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
16.07.2024 for One Time Settlement of the loan amount in
loan A/c No.19090136810 for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-.
12. It is stated by respondent No.2 that, he was
totally unaware about the new A/c No.19090136810.
However, the receipts placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 depict that
respondent No.2 made payment to new A/c
No.19090136810. Hence, the contention of respondent
No.2 that he was unaware about the new account number
cannot be accepted.
13. No doubt in the document placed by respondent
No.2 i.e. plaint and evidence in O.S.No.50/2020 reveals
that the petitioners-Bank has stated that new A/c
No.19090136810 was opened in the year 2014. However,
the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, an
amendment application is filed to that effect.
14. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners
also relied on the application filed by respondent No.2 on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
07.11.2015 to the Branch Manager of petitioners-Bank
requesting to extend six month time to close the loan
account bearing No.90556000000035, which clarifies that
a new account was not existing at that point of time.
Though the respondent No.2 disputed his signature in the
request letter dated 16.07.2024, the same bears the seal
of the Bank and it is stated in the said letter that,
respondent No.2 is ready to settle his loan account with an
amount of Rs.2,75,000/- for One Time Settlement and he
is ready to pay Rs.50,000/- on that day.
15. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that a case has been registered against
father of respondent No.2 by the Bank authorities for sale
of property which was mortgaged by him as a guarantor
for the loan amount in question. The said case has been
registered in Crime No.259/2020 of Lingasugur Police
Station. As such, as a counter blast, this case has been
registered against the petitioners.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
16. On overall perusal of the materials on record, I
am of the considered view that the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse
of process of Court since the same is manifestly frivolous,
vexatious and instituted with the ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance. Even if the entire allegations in the
FIR and charge sheet accepted on their face value, the
same do not prima facie constitute offences charge
sheeted against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.
17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.917/2025, arising out of Crime
No.11/2025 registered by Lingasugur
Police Station, Raichur District, for the
offence punishable under Sections 468,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1887
HC-KAR
420 and 175 of IPC, pending on the file
of Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11
CT-BH
