[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmi. R vs The State Of Karnataka By Cubbon Park ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 03.03.2026
Pronounced on : 13.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3208 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI R.,
W/O B.L.JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT:
NO.611, ROYAL PARK RESIDENCY
J.P. NAGAR 9TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SHRAVAN MADHAV K.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. C.J. MURALIDHAR
S/O LATE. JAYRAM
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT:
NO.25, KERAF SRI GIRIRAJ,
R.K. MATH ROAD,
HALSUR, BENGALURU - 560 008.
WORKING AT:
EPFO STAFF CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.13, BAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
B.N.S.S., 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C. NO. 207/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU WITH RESPECT TO
THE PETITIONER; AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
27.01.2026 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE -
C IN SPL.C. NO. 207 OF 2026 PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.4 is at the doors of this Court
calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.207 of 2026
arising out of crime in Crime No.199 of 2025 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 408, 409, 411, 477A read
with 34 and 37 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection
of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for
short 'KPID Act') and Section 66D of the Information Technology
Act, 2000.
2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant
registers a complaint on 31-10-2025 as the President of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Staff Credit Co-operative
Society Limited. The allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 4 have
siphoned of the amount of provident fund that was deposited by
nearly 300 employees and retired employees and thereby
committed misappropriation of funds. It is the further allegation
that from 2 to 3 months, the accused have also not credited the
interest amount on the fixed deposits made, thereby close to ₹70/-
crores of amount in the Society has went missing. On this score
the complaint comes to be registered. The Police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet against four accused making
all 359 persons who have lost their provident fund amount as
witnesses. The petitioner/accused No.4 challenges filing of charge
sheet against her, on the score that she has no role to play in the
entire episode of alleged crime and, therefore, the proceedings
must not be permitted to continue against her.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil
appearing for the petitioner while taking this Court to the
documents appended to the petition, as also to the charge sheet
material, would contend that the petitioner is only the wife of
accused No.2 and she has not received any money nor can she be
alleged of any misappropriation. Therefore, further proceedings if
permitted to continue against the present petitioner would become
an abuse of the process of law. He would further contend that
invocation of KPID Act against the petitioner is also abuse of the
process of law.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
submits that the role of the petitioner is clearly brought out in the
summary of the charge sheet. The petitioner is the wife of accused
No.3. Though she is not the member of the Society, so far she is
the beneficiary of several amounts, as the amounts are credited to
the account of accused No.4 in HDFC Bank, BDCC Bank and Axis
Bank to the tune of ₹6,50,89,766/-. If the petitioner is not prima
facie guilty of the offence, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor would submit who else can be. Projecting it to be that
she is nowhere concerned with the Society is of no avail, as accused
No.2 and 3 have received the amount in their accounts from the
account of accused No.4. It is a clear case of conspiracy and
misappropriation punishable under the provisions of KPID Act as
well.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are
all a matter of record. It is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant was working as a Section Supervisor in the
organization for the last 33 years and at the relevant point in time
was the President of 15 Member Board. It is the allegation that
around 300 employees and retired employees have totally
deposited ₹70/- crores as fixed deposit in the Cooperative Society.
The said ₹70/- crores is said to have become the subject of
misappropriation by the accused. On the said allegation, the
complainant registers a complaint on 31-10-2025. The complaint
reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ, ಾಂಕ-31.10.2025
ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆಕ
ಕಬ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ
ಇಂದ,
&.'ೆ ಮುರ)ಧ + ,ೇ- ಜಯ0ಾ1 54ವಷ
ಅಧ45ರು ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ
@ಾ A Bೆ9ೕC- Bೋ.ಅ @ೋ@ೈE FGೆ=
ನಂ.13, ಭ:ಷ4IJ ಭವನ, 0ಾಜ0ಾ1 Kೕಹ 0ಾ8 ರ@ೆM
ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ-560025
Nಾ Oಾಸ ನಂ.25, BೇರA P9ೕ ಗಜ0ಾQ ಆ .Bೆ ಮಠ ರ@ೆM,
ಹಲಸೂರು, ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ-560008 . Kಸಂ.8088000046
Tಾನ40ೇ,
:ಷಯ:- ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ @ಾ A Bೆ9ೕC- Bೋ.ಅ
@ೋ@ೈE FGೆ= ನ Nಾ &.ಇ.ಓ ಆVರುವ W. ೋX ಾಥ & ಈ
[ಂ\ೆ @ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 ಅBೌಂGೆಂ- Bೆಲಸ TಾCBೊಂCದ^ +.ಎ_
ಜಗ ೕ`, TಾW ಅಧ45ರುಗaಾದ, :'ೇಂದ9 0ಾb, ಜಯಶಂಕ ,
TಾW &.ಇ.ಓ ಗaಾದ ಂಗಪe ೌಡ, ಪ9gಾಕ Nಾಗೂ ಇತರರ :ರುದi
ದೂರು
*****-***-*****
ಾನು ಈ jೕಲkಂಡ Nಾ :aಾಸದ ಾC ೆ ಮ ೆಯ 7 ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸjೕತOಾಸOಾVದು^
ಸುTಾರು 33ವಷ ಂದ ಇ\ೆ ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ 0ಾಜ0ಾ1 Kೕಹ 0ಾ8 ರ@ೆMಯ 7ರುವ
ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ ಕmೇ ಯ 7 @ೆ5 ಸೂ ೆnOೈಸ ಆV Bೆಲಸ
TಾCBೊಂCರುoೆMೕ ೆ. ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೇಷ ನ 7 Bೆಲಸ Tಾಡುವ ಏಂ ಾ78
ಗ) ೆ ,ೋ PÉÆಡುವ & IವೃrM Nೊಂ ರುವ ಅJBಾ &ಬ ಂ ಗಳs &tರ ೇವu (ಎA.C) ಇಡುವ
1961 ರ 7 ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ @ಾ A Bೆ9ೕC-' Bೋ.ಅ @ೋ@ೈE
FGೆ= ಅ@ೋvwೕಷ @ಾtಪ ೆ ಆVರುoೆM.
ಈ ಅ@ೋvwೕಷ ನ 7 ಒಟು 15 ಜನ ೋ= ಸದಸ4 ದು^ ಒಬ ರು ಅಧ45ರು, ಒಬ ರು
ಉ ಾಧ45ರು ಒಬ ರು &.ಇ.ಓ Nಾಗೂ ಇನುz)ದ 12 ಜನ I\ೇ ಶಕರು ಆVರುoಾM0ೆ. ಇ\ೆ ವಷ ದ
{ೆಬ9ವ TಾNೆ|ಂದ ಾನು ಅಧ45 ಾVರುoೆMೕ ೆ, ನಮ} @ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 ಸುTಾರು 300 ಜನ
ಎಂ ಾ78ಗಳs, IವೃತM ಎಂ ಾ78 ಗಳs ಒಟು ಸುTಾರು 70 BೋE ರೂಗಳ ವ0ೆಗೂ ಎA.C ೇವu
ಇE ರುoಾM0ೆ. @ೊ@ೈE Nೆಸ ನ 7 ಇ\ೆ ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ +.C & +.ಆ .C.&.& ಾ4ಂ
ಮ,ೆ7ೕಶ~ರಂ •ಾ€ೆಯ 7 €ಾoೆ Nೊಂ ದು^ €ಾoೆ ನಂ.61904000203 ಆVರುತM\ೆ.
ಾನು ಸಹ ನನz ಸ೦ಬ೦ ಕ ಂದ, @ೆzೕ[ತ ಂದ ಪ;ೆದು ಈ ೆ‚ 3-4 ವಷ ಗಳ [ಂ\ೆ 45 ®PÀë
ರೂಗಳs ಎA.C ಇE ರುoೆM ೆ, ನನz 'ೊoೆಯ 7 ೋ= ಸದಸ40ಾVರುವ ಅ ೇಕರು ಎA.C
ಇE ರುoಾM0ೆ, &.ಇ.ಓ P9ೕ W. ೋX ಾಥ ರವರು ಇ.X.ಎA ಕmೇ ಯ 7 Bೆಲಸ Tಾಡುವ &ಬ ಂJಗ) ೆ
•ೇಕಡ 11% Oಾv ಕ ಬCƒ ದರBೆk Oೈಯ„Mಕ @ಾಲ IೕಡುoಾM0ೆ, @ಾಲ ಪ;ೆದ &ಬ ಂJಯ ಪ9rrಂಗಳ
ಸಂಬಳ ಂದ,ೇ ಇ.ಎಂ.ಐ ಕಡತOಾVತM\ೆ. ಎA.C ಇE ರುವ ಏಂ ಾ78ಗಳs •ೇಕಡ 9% ರಷು
Oಾv ಕ ಬCƒಯನುz ಪ9r rಂಗಳs Bೆಲವ ೆ ಾ4ಂ €ಾoೆ ೆ & Bೆಲವ ೆ ನಗದು ರೂಪದ 7 ಾವr
TಾಡುತM ಬಂ ರುoಾM0ೆ.
@ೊ@ೈEಯ ೈ,ಾ ಪ9Bಾರ ೋ= ಸದಸ4 ೆ ಪ9r rಂಗಳs &.ಇ.ಓ ರವರು ಸgೆ ನ;ೆ&,
ಪ9r rಂಗಳ ,ೆಕk†ಾರದ :ವರಗಳನುz oೋ ಸ ೇ„ರುತM\ೆ, ಆದ0ೆ &.ಇ.ಓ ರವರು ಈ ೆ‚ ಸುTಾರು
rಂಗಳs ಗ)ಂದ ೋ= FೕEಂ‡ ನ;ೆಸುrMಲ7, ಾವˆ Bೇ)\ಾಗ ಎ,ಾ7ವˆ ಸ ‰ಾV ನ;ೆಯುrM\ೆ,
‰ಾವˆ\ೇ oೊಂದ0ೆ ಇಲ7Oೆಂದು ಸಮ'ಾ|v BೊಡುrMದರು, ಇದಲ7\ೆ ೋ= ಸದಸ4ರುಗಳs ಸಹ
ೇ0ೆ ೇ0ೆ ಕ;ೆಗಳ 7 Bೆಲಸ Tಾಡುವˆದ ಂದ Nಾಗೂ ಪ9r rಂಗಳs ಎA.C ೇವu\ಾರ ೆ ಬCƒ
ಹಣವನುz ಸ ‰ಾV ಸಂ\ಾಯ TಾಡುrMದ^ವ ಂದ ಾವˆ ಸಹ FೕEಂ‡ Tಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ‚ Nೆ‹Œನ ಗಮನ
IೕCರ ಲ7. Bೆಲವˆ FೕEಂ‡ಗಳ 7 ಾವˆ ,ೆಕk†ಾರದ \ಾಖ,ಾrಗಳನುz ಪ Pೕಲ ೆ TಾC\ಾಗ
ನಮ ೆ oೋ ಸುrMದ^ ,ೆಕk†ಾರOೇ ೇ0ೆ ಆದ0ೆ ಈಗ ನ;ೆ ರುವˆ\ೆ ೇ0ೆ ಆVರುತM\ೆ
ಈ ೆ‚ 2-3 rಂಗಳsಗ)ಂದ ಎA.C
ಎA C ೇವu\ಾರ ೆ ಬCƒ ಹಣವನುz @ೊ@ೈE|ಂದ ¸ÀA\ಾಯ
TಾಡುrMರ ಲ7, Bೆಲವˆ ಎA.C
ಎA C ಇE ರುವ ಎಂ ಾ78ಗಳs,
ಗಳs IವೃತM ೌಕರರು ತªÀÄä ಎA.C
ಎA C ಹಣವನುz
:Ž ;ಾ9 TಾCBೊಡಲು &.ಇ
ಇ.ಒ
ಒ ರವರನುz Bೇ)\ಾಗ &.ಇ
ಇ.ಓ
ಓ W. ೋX ಾಥ €ಾoೆಯ 7 ಹಣ:ಲ7,
ಸದ4Bೆk ‰ಾವˆ\ೇ
‰ಾವˆ\ೇ ಎA.C
ಎA C :Ž ;ಾ9 TಾCBೊಡಲು @ಾಧ4:ಲ7Oೆ೦
ೆ೦ದು r)&ರುoಾM0ೆ.ೆ ಸದ :†ಾರ
ನನz ಗಮನBೆk ಬಂ\ಾಗ ಾನು ಈ ಬ ೆ‚ ಪ Pೕಲ ೆ Tಾಡ,ಾV @ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 ಸುTಾರು 70 BೋE
ರೂಗಳ ವ0ೆಗೂ &t0ಾ ೇವu ಇE ರುoಾM0ೆ,ೆ ಆದ0ೆ ಏಂ ಾ78ಗ) ೆ IೕCರುವ ಸುTಾರು @ಾಲದ
KತMವˆ 3.5 BೋE ರೂಗಳs Tಾತ9Oೇ
Tಾತ9Oೇ ಇರುವˆದು \ಾಖ,ಾrಗ)ಂದ ಬಂ ರುoೆM.
ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ @ಾ A Bೆ9ೕC- Bೋ.ಅ
Bೋ ಅ @ೋ@ೈE FGೆ=
ನ 7 W. ೋX ಾಥ ಈ ೆ‚ 2015 ಂದ &.ಇ
ಇ.ಓ
ಓ ಆV Bೆಲಸ TಾCBೊಂCರುoಾM ೆ & ಈತ ೆ ಎ,ಾ7
ಅBೌಂ-/ಹಣBಾ&ನ
ಅBೌಂ- ಹಣBಾ&ನ ವ4ವNಾರಗಳನುz ೋCBೊಳs•oಾM ೆ.ೆ W. ೋX ಾಥ,
ಾಥ @ೊ@ೈEಯ
@ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 ಈ [ಂ\ೆ
ಅBೌಂGೆಂ- Bೆಲಸ TಾCBೊಂCದ^ +.ಎ_
ಎ_ ಜಗ ೕ` Nಾಗೂ [ಂ ನ ಅಧ45ರುಗaಾದ :'ೇಂದ9
0ಾb,
0ಾb ಜಯಶಂಕ TಾW &.ಇ
ಇ.ಓ
ಓ ಗaಾದ ಂಗಪe ೌಡ,
ೌಡ ಪ9gಾಕ ಎಂಬುವವರು Nಾಗೂ ಇತರರು
@ೇ Bೊಂಡು ಇXಎA ಕmೇ ಯ 7 Nಾ Bೆಲಸ TಾCBೊಂCರುವ Nಾಗೂ IವೃತM ೌಕರರುಗ) ೆ
ಕಮv ಯ_ ಾ4ಂ„Vಂತ
ಾ4ಂ„Vಂತ Nೆ‹Œನ ಬCƒ ದರ IೕಡುoೆMೕOೆ ಎಂದು ನಂ+& ಸುTಾರು 300 ಜನ ಂದ
ಸುTಾರು 70 BೋE ರೂಗಳ ವ0ೆಗೂ ಹಣ ಪ;ೆದು @ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 &t0ಾ ೇವu(ಎA
ೇವu ಎA.C
ಎA C)
TಾCBೊE ರುoಾM0ೆ.ೆ
2009 ಂದ ಇ 7ಯ ವ0ೆVನ ಅವJಯ 7 ನಂ+& &t0ಾ ೇವu (ಎA
ಎA.C
ಎA C) TಾC& ಸುTಾರು
300 ಜನ ಂದ ಸುTಾರು 70 BೋE
BೋE ರೂಗಳs ಹಣ ಪ;ೆದು ಒಳಸಂಚು TಾC ಸದ ಹಣವನುz
ದುಬ ಳBೆ TಾCದು^, ಸುಳs• ,ೆಕk ಬ0ೆದು,
ಬ0ೆದು ನಕ \ಾಖ,ಾrಗಳನುz ಸೃv &,
& Kೕಸ TಾC ನಂ+Bೆ
\ೊ9ೕಹ.
\ೊ9ೕಹ ಎಸVರುವ ಎಂ ಾ78 ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ @ಾ A Bೆ9ೕC- Bೋ.ಅ
Bೋ ಅ @ೋ@ೈE
FGೆ=ನ
FGೆ=ನ Nಾ &.ಇ
ಇ.ಓ
ಓ ಆVರುವ W. ೋX ಾಥ & ಈ [ಂ\ೆ
[ಂ\ೆ @ೊ@ೈEಯ 7 ಅBೌಂGೆಂ- Bೆಲಸ
TಾCBೊಂCದ^ +.ಎ_
ಎ_ ಜಗ ೕ`,
ೕ` TಾW ಅಧ45ರುಗaಾದ,
ಅಧ45ರುಗaಾದ :'ೇಂದ9 0ಾb,
0ಾb ಜಯಶಂಕ , TಾW
&.ಇ
ಇ.ಓ
ಓ ಗaಾದ ಂಗಪe ೌಡ,
ೌಡ ಪ9gಾಕ Nಾಗೂ ಇತರರ :ರುದi ದೂರು ಸೂಕM Bಾನೂನು ಕ9ಮ
ಜರುVಸ ೇBೆಂದು BೋರುoೆMೕ ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)
At the stage of registration of complaint, the petitioner is said to
have been drawn as accused No.7. At a later point in time while
registering the crime, only 6 accused were shown, but the
petitioner was shown as 7th accused in the remand application. The
police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet depicting the
role of each of the accused and as to what benefit they have been
drawn in the alleged misappropriation. Insofar as the petitioner is
concerned, the finding in the charge sheet is as follows:
".... .... ....
ಆ0ೋX-4
ಆ0ೋX ಲ'' ಆ .
ಈ ಪ9ಕರಣದ ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋX ಲ'' ಆ ಈBೆಯು ಪ9ಕರಣದ ಎ3 ೇ ಆ0ೋX ಜಗJೕ`.
ಜಗJೕ`
+.ಎ_
ಎ_ ಈತನ ಪrz‰ಾVದು^, ಈBೆಯು @ೊ@ೈEಯ ಸದ@ೆ4 ಅಲ7\ೇ ಇದ^ರೂ ಸಹ ಅಕ9ಮ ,ಾಭ
ಸಂ ಾಧ ೆಯ ಸಲುOಾV ೇವ ೆ\ಾರ ೆ ಅಕ9ಮ ನಷ ಉಂಟು Tಾಡುವ ಉ\ೆ^ೕಶ ಂದ ಎ2 ಮತುM ಎ3
ೇ ಆ0ೋXಗಳ ಒಳಸಂ‹Iಂದ
ಒಳಸಂ‹Iಂದ ಎ3 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯು ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋX ೆ @ೇ ದ HDFC ಾ4ಂ ,
ಜಯನಗರ 5 ೇ ಾ7 •ಾ€ೆಯ €ಾoೆ ನಂ.
ನಂ.50100196310110 ೆ ಾಂಕ : 11.01.2017
ಂದ 04.02.2025 ರ ಅವJಯ 7 ಹಂತ ಹಂತOಾV ರೂ 6,50,89,766/- ಹಣವನುz @ೊ@ೈEಯ
BDCC ಾ4ಂ Acc. No: 619040002031 Iಂದ ಅಕ9ಮOಾV ವ ಾ ವ ೆ TಾCರುವˆದು
ದೃಡಪE ರುತM\ೆ.ೆ ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯು ತನz ಅBೌಂ- ೆ ಬಂ ದ^ ಹಣದ ೈ„ ಎ2 ಮತುM ಎ3 ೇ
ಆ0ೋXಗಳ I-ೇ ಶನ jೕ0ೆ ೆ ಎ2 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯ ಮಗaಾದ ಹv u ಈBೆಯ Axis Bank :
919010033655457 ಾ4ಂ ಅBೌಂ- ೆ 18,00,000/- ರೂಗಳನುz Nಾಗೂ ಎ2 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯ
ಅ)ಯ ಾದ ಪˆರು--ೋತM1 ಇವರ
ಇವರ ಅBೌಂ- ೆ 25,00,000/= ರೂಗಳನುz ವ ಾ ವ ೆ TಾCರುವˆದು
ಮತುM ಅವˆಗಳನುz ಅಕ9ಮOಾV ಆ&M ಖ ೕ ೆ ಮತುM ಸ~ಂತBಾkV ಉಪ˜ೕV&ರುವˆದು ತI€ೆ|ಂದ
ದೃಡಪE ರುತM\ೆ.ೆ
ಇದಲ7\ೇ ಎ3 ಮತುM ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಗಳs @ೊ@ೈE|ಂದ ಅಕ9ಮOಾV TಾCBೊಂCದ^
ಹಣ ಂದ ಈ Bೆಳಕಂಡ ಚ0ಾ&M ‹0ಾ&Mಗಳನುz ಖ ೕ TಾCರುವˆದು ತI€ೆ|ಂದ ದೃಡಪE ರುತM\ೆ.
1) 'ೆ.X. ನಗರ 9 ೇ ೇ ನ 7ರುವ IOೇಶನವನುz 2016-17 ೇ ಇಸ:ಯ 7 ಎ3 ೇ
ಅ0ೋXಯು ತನz ಪrz ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋX ಲ'' ಆ ಈBೆಯ Nೆಸ ನ 7 ಖ ೕJ&ದು^, 2018-
19 ರ 7 ಮ ೆ ITಾ ಣ TಾCರುoಾM0ೆ.
2) ಇ\ಾದ ನಂತರ 2022-23 ೇ @ಾ ನ 7 +ಡ ಯ {ಾರಂ Nೌ ಬ) ಖ ೕJ&ದ^ ಜFೕI ೆ
Nೊಂ Bೊಂಡಂoೆ ಇದ^ ಸOೆ ನಂ 338/1, ಮತುM 338/2 ರ 7 2 ಎಕ0ೆ 30 ಗುಂGೆ ಜFೕನು
ಇದು^, ಈ ಜFೕನು ಕ ೌಡ Nಾಗೂ ಲ5'ಮ} ಎಂಬುವ ೆ @ೇ \ಾ^VರುತM\ೆ. ಇವರು ಸದ
ಜFೕನನುz Tಾ0ಾಟBೆk ಇE ದು^, ಈ ಜFೕನನುz ಎ3 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯು ತನz ಪrz ಎ4-
ಲ''.ಆ ಈBೆಯ Nೆಸ ನ 7 ತ,ಾ 1 ಎಕ0ೆ 15 ಗುಂGೆ ೆ 46,15,000/-ರೂಗಳಂoೆ
Tಾತುಕoೆ TಾCBೊಂಡು ಒಟು 92,30,000/- ರೂಗ) ೆ ಖ ೕJ& ನಂತರ 0ಾಮನಗರ
ಸ Wಸ ಕmೇ ಯ 7 ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಯ Nೆಸ ನ 7 ೊಂದ ೆ TಾC&BೊಂCರುವˆದು
ತನ€ೆಯ 7 ದೃಡಪE ರುತM\ೆ.
3) 2022-23 ೇ ಇಸ:ಯ 7 'ೆ.X ನಗರ 1 ೇ ೇ ನ 7ರುವ @ೈ- ನಂ 9 ರ 7ನ ಮ ೆಯನುz
ಎ3 ಮತುM ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಗಳs ಜಂE Nೆಸ ನ 7 1,35,00,000/- ರೂಗ) ೆ
ಖ ೕ &ರುoಾM0ೆ.
4) ಎ3 ಮತುM ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXಗಳs ತಮ} Nಾಗೂ ಇತ0ೆ ಸಂಬಂJಕರ Nೆಸರುಗಳ 7 2010 ೇ
ಇಸ:ಯ 7 Nೊಂ;ಾ &E, Bಾ ನುz, 2017 ೇ ಇಸ:ಯ 7 Nೊಂ;ಾ &E Bಾ ನುz, 2019
ೇ ಇಸ:ಯ 7 ™ೕ‡ ™ೕಗ ೕ,ೋ Bಾ ನುz ಖ ೕJ&ದು^, 2021 ೇ ಇಸ:ಯ
ನಂತರ xÁ FI ಕೂಪ , +.ಎಂ.ಡಬು7š.ಇ-36, X9ೕFಯ ಪದ}I, 'ೆ Bಾ , W¦ì
Bಾ , 0ೇOಾ Bಾ , Nಾಗೂ ~ಚಕ9 Oಾಹನಗaಾದ ಆ ಎ -135, ಆ ಎ -100, ಓ,ಾ
~ಚಕ9 Oಾಹನ, ಯಮNಾ 0ೇ, 0ಾಯ_ ಎ ›ೕ_ƒ WE-650, E:ಎ ಕಂಪIಯ ಎ,ೆ„z
ೈ , ಯಮNಾ ಏ0ೋ , ಖ ೕJ&ರುoಾM0ೆ.
ಆದ^ ಂದ ಆ0ೋX-4
ಆ0ೋX ಲ'' ಆ ಈBೆಯ :ರುದi ಕಲಂ-9
ಕಲಂ ಆA Bೆ.X
Bೆ X.ಐ
ಐ.C
C. ಆ -2004 'ೊoೆ ೆ ಕಲಂ-
ಕಲಂ
+), 403, 411 'ೊoೆ ೆ 37 ಐ.X
120(+ X.&
& ೕoಾ4 \ೋ--ಾ0ೋಪ ೆ ಪE ಸ &
7 \ೆ.
\ೆ
ಈ \ೋ--ಾ0ೋಪ ಾ ಪE ಯ 7 ನಮೂ &ರುವ ಎ2 ಂದ ಎ4 ೇ ಆ0ೋXತ0ೆಲ7ರೂ
ಪರಸeರ •ಾFೕ,ಾV ಅಪ0ಾಧತ}ಕ Xತೂ ನ;ೆ&,
ನ;ೆ& ವಂಚ ೆ Tಾಡುವ ಉ\ೆ^ೕಶ ಂದ ಎಂ ಾ78
ಾ9:;ೆಂ- ಫಂ= ಆಗ ೈ'ೆಷ @ಾ A Bೆ9C- Bೋ.ಅಪ0ೇEb
Bೋ ಅಪ0ೇEb @ೊ@ೈEಯ ಸುTಾರು 300 ಜನ
ಎಂ ಾ78ಗಳs,
ಗಳs IವೃತM ಎಂ ಾ78ಗಳ ಎA.C
ಎA C ಹಣ,
ಹಣ ೇವu ಹಣವನುz ದುಬ ಳBೆ TಾCBೊಂಡು ಸುಳs•
,ೆಕk oೋ &,
& ಹೂCBೆ\ಾರ ೆ ಆœ ಕ ನಷ ವನುzಂಟು TಾC,
TಾC ನಂ+Bೆ\ೊ9ೕಹ ಮತುM Kೕಸ
OೆಸVರುವˆದು ದೃಢಪE ರುತM\ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)
The allegation is that the petitioner/4th accused is the wife of
accused No.3. She is not connected with the affairs of the Society.
She has conspired with her husband and has received an amount of
₹6,50,89,766/- during the period from 11-01-2017 to 4-02-2025.
It is stated that the petitioner has transferred the amount that she
has received into her account as aforesaid, into the accounts of
accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused No.2 has further transferred it to
the account of his daughter. This is the conspiracy note that is
drawn to keep accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the loop of the transaction.
8. About 340 witnesses are drawn as complainant witnesses,
as those persons have deposited their hard earned provident fund
amount into the Society in the great desire of securing interest or
securing amount in lumpsum when they would need it. But, the
amount is missing due to the acts of misappropriation of all the
accused. If the petitioner had not received any amount into her
account, it would have been an altogether different circumstance.
The petitioner has received the bounty on account of
misappropriation. Therefore, there can be no question of
interference at this stage of the proceedings.
9. The petition is shrouded with seriously disputed questions
of fact. In this regard, the Apex Court in KAPTAN SINGH v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by
the time the investigating officer after recording the
(2021) 9 SCC 35
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does
not appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482
CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations
in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is
required to be considered. However, thereafter when
the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and
the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different
footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in
a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into
the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court
in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents
of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court
cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the
powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held
that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,
the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring
no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate
evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is
disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation,
it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this
Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
further observed that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such
exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of
evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind
Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet,
(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and
in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations
which are required to be gone into and considered at the time
of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which
have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High
Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the
document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta
Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2
Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-
10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs
and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni
Devi and no reference to handing over the possession.
However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.
27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out
of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is
a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs
25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish
during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the
joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required
to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25
lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference
to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered
document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations
which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The
High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material
collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court
that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC
is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has
noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is
seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is
required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the
High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has
failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC
with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even
according to the accused the possession was handed over to
them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as
mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed
and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2
lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were
handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can
be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage
to opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be
considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the
first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent
suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for
permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit
for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all
the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time
of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in
quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the
merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on
record the power of attorney along with the counter filed
before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated
in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney
and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the statement of the
complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of
attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by
the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be
confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and
the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid
and without being influenced by any of the observations made
by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the facts, the complaint and the allegation of
misappropriation, the petitioner cannot seek protective hands of
this Court, on the score that she is the wife of accused No.3 and is
not involved in the affairs of the Society. It is for the petitioner to
come out clean in the full-blown trial.
10. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
rejected.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
