[Cites 33, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S Shivakumar vs G H Prakash on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 30.01.2026
Pronounced on : 27.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.202 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI S.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2 . SMT.H.GIRIJA
W/O SRI SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.193/4,
HARSHA HOSPITAL CAMPUS,
NELAMANGALA BYPASS, NH 4,
NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI T. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.H.PRAKASH
NO.5971, S.M.T NILAYA,
GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT,
2
SHUBHASH NAGAR,
NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
2. SUNANDA
W/O LATE H.SHIVAKUMAR
3. S.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE H.SHIVAKUMAR
4. S.PAVITHRA
D/O LATE H.SHIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
RESIDING AT
NO.5743, BEHIND PWD QUARTERS
SHUBHASH NAGAR
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 562 123.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 562 123
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.VELAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-5)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.331/2023
REGISTERED BY NELAMANAGALA TOWN POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S.403, 405, 415, 441, 464, 468, 471, 420, 149 OF
IPC PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.331 of 2023 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 415, 441, 464, 468,
471, 420 and 149 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri A.Velan, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.5.
3. Brief facts, germane, are as follows:
3.1. The 1st respondent and one late H.Shivakumar along with
the petitioners establish a partnership firm and a hospital in the
name and style of M/s Harsha Hospital on 16-01-2004. 1 st
petitioner is the founder trustee of the Trust - Sri Srinivasa
Charitable Trust and the 1st respondent and late H. Shivakumar
were also the trustees who were removed as trustees with effect
from 12-12-2006 from the Trust which runs several educational
institutions under the name and style of Harsha Group of
Institutions. The allegation was that respondents 1 to 4 are said to
have interfered with the administration and management of the
trust allegedly, notwithstanding they being ousted as trustees 7
years ago. This necessitated the petitioners to approach the civil
Court in O.S.No.185 of 2017 seeking injunction against the
respondents from interfering with the administration and
management of the Trust. On 25-11-2017, as a counterblast to the
said suit, an application is made under Section 92 of the CPC in the
said suit seeking an inquiry into the affairs of the Trust and to
convert the suit into a Scheme suit. The civil Court rejects the said
application in terms of its order dated 25-11-2017. The said order is
said to have become final.
3.2. Sri H. Shiva Kumar who was the partner of the firm and
a Trustee dies in the year 2019. The respondents 2 to 4 are the
wife and children of the deceased Sri H. Shiva Kumar. The
respondents are said to have instituted a civil miscellaneous petition
owing to the projection of rights and dispute between the partners
in C.M.P. No.202 of 2023 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to
adjudicate certain dispute between the partners of the firm and
M/s Harsha Hospital. Notwithstanding the same, after the institution
of the C.M.P., respondents 1 to 4 registered a complaint with the
Bank i.e., the Bank of Baroda with all its branches where the
account of the partnership firm was subsisting alleging that the
petitioners have misappropriated funds of the partnership firm and
sought freezement of accounts of the partnership firm account. On
the said complaint, it appears the Bank froze the accounts of the
partnership firm. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed
Writ Petition No.16780 of 2023. This Court, in terms of its order
dated 04-08-2023, permitted operation of bank accounts.
3.3. About three months thereafter the subject complaint
comes to be registered before the 5th respondent/jurisdictional
Police urging the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and
forgery inter alia. This becomes a crime in Crime No.331 of 2023
for the afore-quoted offences. In the interregnum, in terms of an
order dated 11-12-2023, the C.M.P. comes to be dismissed
reserving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with
law. The registration of crime in Crime No.331 of 2023 and
continuance of investigation has led the petitioners to this Court in
the subject petition having been filed on 04-01-2024. A coordinate
Bench of this Court, in terms of an order dated 05-04-2024, grants
an interim order of stay and the said interim order is subsisting
even as on date. The respondents/complainants have preferred an
application seeking vacation of the interim order. The matter is thus
heard with the consent of parties.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J.Chouta appearing
for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue is with
regard to a dispute between the partners. The financial dispute
between the parties is sought to be rendered a colour of crime by
setting the criminal law into motion. The learned senior counsel
takes this Court through the orders passed by the Civil Court in
O.S.No.185 of 2017 to contend that the issue is purely civil in
nature. He would submit that the complaint though projects several
allegations, it cannot be alleged that those allegations would result
in continuance of investigation at the hands of the Police, as the
allegations are all a well drafted complaint, but in substance, does
not indicate any offence, except the offence between the partners
of a Company, that too after the death of the partner H. Shiva
Kumar in the year 2019. There was a lurking dispute between the
partners of the firm and, therefore, the petitioners were before the
civil Court in O.S.No.185 of 2017. The complainants had made an
application under Section 92 of the CPC to intervene into the said
civil suit and to convert it into a Scheme suit for an inquiry into the
affairs of the charitable Trust. The said application is rejected on
25-11-2017 and the crime comes to be registered in the year 2023.
On these submissions, the learned counsel seeks the prayers as
sought for.
5. The learned counsel Sri A. Velan appearing for
complainants/respondents 1 to 4 would take this Court through the
objections filed by them to prima facie demonstrate that the dispute
that arose between the two though in the first blush would look to
be a purely civil dispute, on a deeper delving into the matter,
criminal acts of petitioners/A1 and A2 with regard to
misappropriation of the funds of the Trust which would clearly
become ingredients of criminal breach trust and cheating come
about. Immediately after registration of the crime, an interim order
is granted in the case at hand. The interim order is secured by the
petitioners on an erroneous pretext that a writ petition was
preferred seeking operation of bank accounts and the moment the
coordinate Bench granted permission to operate the bank accounts,
the complaint is registered. The learned counsel would submit that
the actions of the petitioners clearly indicate that it is a fit case for
investigation. He would seek dismissal of the petition. Both the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents
have relied on several judgments to buttress their respective
submissions, all of which would bear consideration qua their
relevance in the course of the order.
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, link in the chain of events or the
lurking dispute between the partners of the firm are all a matter of
record. They would not require any iteration for the purpose of
consideration of the case at hand at this juncture. The entire issue
is triggered from the complaint. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to
notice the complaint. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
ಷಯ: ಾರ ೕಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂ vÉ, 1860 ರ ಅ ಯ (ಆ ಯ ಅ¥Áæ ಾ ಕ
ದುರುವ ೕಗ-403, ಅ¥À ಾ ಕ ನಂ ೆ ಉಲಂಘ%ೆ-405, ವಂಚ%ೆ-415,
ಅಪ ಾ ಕ ಅ ಕ)ಮಣ 441, ಸು¼ÀÄî, ,ಾಖ.ೆ ರಚ%ೆ-464, %ಾ/0ಾಲಯದ
ಅಥ2ಾ 3ಾವ4ಜ6ಕ %ೋಂದ ಯ ,ಾಖ.ೆಯ ನಕ , ಇ9ಾ/ 466,
ವಂಚ%ೆಯ ಉ,ೆ:ೕಶ ಾ<= ನಕ -468, ಮತು ವಂ? ದ: ಾ<= ಆ ೋ@ ಸಂAೆ/ 1
Bಂದ 6 ರ ರುದC ದೂರು.
%ಾನು, D.ಎF.ಪ) ಾG 2ಾಸ ನಂ.5971, ಎH. ಎಂ. I. 6ಲಯ Jೋ ಂದಪK .ೇಔM,
ಸು ಾN ನಗರ, %ೆಲಮಂಗಲ, OೆಂಗಳQರು 562123, (ROೈT: 9448069394) ಮತು ಸುನಂ,
ಸುನಂ,ಾ,
ಎH.ಮಂಜು
ಮಂಜು%
ಮಂಜು%ಾU ಮತು ಎH.ಪ
ಪ 9ಾ
9ಾ) ರವರು ಎF. Vವಕು ಾW ರವರ ಪ X ಮತು ಮಕ<Yಾ=ದು:
2ಾಸ ನಂ. 5743, @ಡಬೂ[ ಾ\ಟ4Hð ಂ ಾಗದ , ಸು ಾN ನಗರ, %ೆಲಮಂಗಲ, OೆಂಗಳQರು-
562111 ರ ಮತು ಪ 9ಾ) ಅವರು ನಂ.88, ¥ÉÊ¥ï .ೈ^ ರ3ೆ, ಾಗ ಮುಖ/ರ3ೆ, ಅಂಜನನಗರ,
OೆಂಗಳQರು-560091. (ROೈT ಸಂAೆ/ 7204390045). ಎF. Vವಕು ಾW ಅವರು ಏ@)T 2019
ರ ಭ ೕ9ಾKದಕ ,ಾaಯ V)ೕಲಂ ಾದ 6ಧನ ಾ=ದು:, ಅವರ 2ಾರಸು,ಾರರದ ಸುನಂ,ಾ, ಎH.
ಮಂಜು%ಾU ಮತು ಎH. ಪ 9ಾ) ರವರು cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಪತ)ದ ಷರತು 13ರ ಪ) ಾರ ಸದB
cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ cಾಲು,ಾರ ಾ=ರು9ಾgÉ.
%ಾವeಗಳf, ಎH.V
Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ
ಎ-1) ಮತು =Bgಾ
=Bgಾ (ಎ
ಎ-2) ಮತು ಆ ೋ@
ೋ@ ನಂ.
ನಂ 3, 4, 5 &6 ಅವರು
ಎಸ=ರುವ h)iನT ಅಪ ಾಧಗaJೆ ಸಂಬಂj ದ ಈ ದೂರನುX 6ಮl Jೌರ2ಾ6\ತ ಕnೇBJೆ
ಸ ಸು9ೇ2ೆ.
1. oೕಲ<ಂಡ %ಾವeಗಳf M/s ಹಷ4 ಆಸK9ೆ)ಯ cಾಲು,ಾರ ಾ=ದು:, ಸದB cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ
ಸಂ3ೆdಯು %ಾಂಕ 24/01/2004 ರಂದು %ೋಂದ 0ಾ=, %ೋಂದ ಸಂAೆ/ 1515/2003-
2004 %ೊಂ Jೆ ಅ ತ\ ೆ< ಬಂ ರುತ,ೇ. ಸದB %ೋಂ,ಾqತ cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯು
ಆಸK9ೆ), rಾ.ೆ, ಾ.ೇಜುಗಳf ಮತು ಾ/ಂIೕ^ಗಳf, o ಕT 3ೊsೕW ಇ9ಾ/ 3ಾdಪ%ೆ ಮತು
nಾಲ%ೆ, ಗುB ಮತು ಉ,ೆ:ೕಶಗಳನುX 3ಾjಸುವ ಉ,ೆ:ೕಶ ಾ<= ಅ ತ\ ೆ< ಬಂ ರುತ,ೆ. ಹಷ4
ಆಸK9ೆ)ಯ cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಪತ) ಮತು %ೋಂದ ಪ) ಾಣಪತ)ದ ಪ) ಯನುX ಅನುಬಂಧ 1 ಮತು
2 ಎಂದು ಸ ಸ.ಾ=,ೆ.
2. cಾಲು,ಾB ೆಯ ಸಂ3ೆdಗ ಅಗತ/ ರುವ ಬಂಡ2ಾಳವನುX %ಾವe ಕಷsಪಟುs ಗa ದ ಹಣ ಂದ
ಹೂ ೆ ಾ ದು:. cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ .ಾಭ ಮತು ನಷsವನುX cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಪತ)ದ
a ರುವಂ9ೆ ಇ ೆಳ=ನ ೋಷsಕದ ಪ) ಾರ ನಮl ನಡು2ೆ ಂಗ ಸಲು %ಾವe ೊಂ ರು9ೇ2ೆ:
Sl.No. Partners Capital Contribution Profit and Loss
1 ಎH.V
Vವಕು ಾW Rs.12,00,000 30%
2 V)ೕಮ ಎF.=Bgಾ Rs.8,00,000 20%
3 ಎF.Vವಕು ಾW Rs.12,00,000 30%
4 D.ಎF.ಪ) ಾG Rs.8,00,000 20%
3. %ಾಂಕ 30/04/2004 ರಂದು, ಸ2ೆ4 ಸಂAೆ/ 193/4 ರ ನ 39 ಗುಂtೆ ಕೃvwೕತರ ಉ,ೆ:ೕಶ ೆ<
ಪBವ 4ಸ.ಾದ ಜiೕನನುX cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ (oಸH4 ಹಷ4 ಆಸK9ೆ)) xೆಸBನ
ಖBೕ ಸ.ಾ=ದು:, ಸದB ಕ)ಯ ಪತ)ದ ಎ.ಾ cಾಲು,ಾರರು ಸ ಾ ರು9ೇ2ೆ, ಕ)ಯ ಪತ)ದ
ಪ) ಯನುX ಅನುಬಂಧ-3
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸ ಸ.ಾ=,ೆ.
4. Rjâ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.193/4gÀ°è£À 39 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV
96,325 ZÀzÀgÀ Cr «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ಮೂರು ಪ)9ೆ/ೕಕ ಕಟsಡಗಳನುX 6i4ಸ.ಾ=ರುತ,ೆ.
5 Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಅವBJೆ ಆಸK9ೆ) ಆಡaತ yೇತ)ದ ಸ\ಲK ಅನುಭವ ದ: ಾರಣ, ನolಲರ
ಒ@KJೆಯಂ9ೆ, ಹಷ4 ಆಸK9ೆ)ಯನುX %ೆ ಸಲು Vವಕು ಾW ರವರ (ಎ-1)
ೈJೊ@Kಸ.ಾ=ರುತ,ೆ.
6. ನolಲರ ಒ@KJೆಯಂ9ೆ Oಾ/ಂ| ಆ} ಬ ೋ~ಾದ ಹಷ4 ಆಸK9ೆ)ಯ xೆಸBನ Oಾ/ಂ|
Aಾ9ೆ ಸಂAೆ/105406011000004 (ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ «dAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAPï: 89310400000002)
¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆ 9ೆ ೆಯ.ಾ=ದು:, ಹಷ4 ಆಸK9ೆ)ಯ xೆಸBನ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆ ಸಂAೆ/
105406011000004ರ Oಾ/ಂ| 3ೆsೕMoಂMನ ಪ) ಯನುX ಅನುಬಂಧ-4
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು
ಸ ಸ.ಾ=,ೆ.
7. %ಾವe ಎH. Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಅವರ oೕ.ೆ ಅcಾರ ನಂ ೆ ಇಟುs ಮತು ಅವರ oೕ ನ
rಾ\ಸ ಮತು ನಂ ೆಯ ಆ•ಾರದ oೕ.ೆ ಕಟsಡಗಳf ಮತು ಅದರ ಆಡaತವನುX ಅವBJೆ
ವ ೊಡ.ಾ=ದು: ಮತು ಎH. Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಅವರು cಾಲು,ಾರರ ಮತು ಸಂ3ೆd
ತದೃvsqಂದ cಾ) ಾ ಕ2ಾ= ಾಯ46ವ4 ಸಲು Oಾಧ/9ೆ xೊಂ ರುತ ೆ.
8. ಆ,ಾಗೂ/, ಎH. Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಮತು =Bgಾ (ಎ-2) ಅವರು ತಮl rಾ\3ಾಹ4
ಕತ4ವ/ವನುX ಉಲಂ€ ಮತು Rೕಸ ಂದ ಮತು ಅcಾ) ಾ ಕ2ಾ= h)iನT ನಂ ೆಯ
ಉಲಂಘ%ೆಯ ಅಪ ಾಧವನುX ಾ ,ಾ: ೆ ಮತು ಸಂ3ೆdಯ ಹಣ ಮತು ಆ ಯನುX
ದುರುಪ ೕಗಪ ೊಂ ರುವeದು ನಮl ಗಮನ ೆ< ಬಂ ರುತ,ೆ. ನಮJೆ, ಟ)Hs ಮತು
ಎHಇ ಮಂಡaJೆ Rೕಸ ಾಡಲು ಮತು ವಂ?ಸಲು ಅವರು ಹಲ2ಾರು ನಕ
,ಾಖ.ೆಗಳನುX ಸೃvs ರು9ಾ ೆ.
9. ಎH. Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಮತು =Bgಾ (ಎ-2) ಅವರು ಈ ೆಳ=ನಂ9ೆ ಹಲ2ಾರು
h)iನT/ಅಪ ಾದಗಳನೂX ಎಸ=ರು9ಾ ೆ;
ಎ. ಅಪ ಾಧ ಚಟುವI
ಚಟುವI ೆ-1:-
%ಾಂಕ 1/10/2008 ರಂದು ಇತರ cಾಲು,ಾರರ ಅಂದ ೆ ನಮl ಅನುಮ qಲ,ೆ V)ೕಮ
=Bgಾರವರು (A-2) ವಂಚ%ೆqಂದ ಮತು ಅcಾ) ಾ ಕ2ಾ= ರೂ. 5,00,000/- ಅನುX
cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆqಂದ, nೆ| ಸಂAೆ/ 766073 ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೆಯ 2ೈಯhಕ
Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆ ಸಂAೆ/ SB-30425 ೆ< ವJಾ4ವ•ೆ ಾ ೊಂ ರು9ಾ ೆ.
. ಅಪ ಾಧ ಚಟುವI
ಚಟುವI ೆ-2-
%ಾಂಕ 1/10/2008 ರಂದು ಇತರ cಾಲು,ಾರರ ಅಂದ ೆ ನಮl ಅನುಮ qಲ,ೆ V)ೕಮ
=Bgಾರವರು (A-2) ವಂಚ%ೆqಂದ ಮತು ಅcಾ) ಾ ಕ2ಾ= ರೂ. 5,00,000/- ಅನುX
cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆqಂದ. nೆ| ಸಂAೆ/ 766072 ಮೂಲಕ, ಆ ೆಯ
2ೈಯhಕ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆ ಸಂAೆ/ SB-30425 ೆ< Aಾ9ೆJೆ ವJಾ4ವ•ೆ ಾ ೋಂ ರು9ಾ ೆ.
ಅಪ ಾಧ 1 & 2 ಅನುX ಪ) ಂ ಸುವ 2ಾಲು,ಾB ೆ ಸಂ3ೆdಯ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆಯ 3ೆsೕMoಂM
ನ ಪ) ಯನುX ಅನುಬಂಧ-5
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸ ಸ.ಾ=,ೆ.
. ಅಪ ಾಧ ಚಟುವI
ಚಟುವI ೆ-3:-
ಅ,ೇ ನ ಅಂದರ %ಾಂಕ 01/10/2008 ರಂದು ಎH.Vವಕು ಾW (ಎ-1) ಮತು V)ೕಮ
=Bgಾ (ಎ-2) ಅವರು ಇತರ cಾಲು,ಾರರ ಅಂದ ೆ ನಮl ಅನುಮ qಲ,ೆ, cಾಲು,ಾB ೆ
ಸಂ3ೆdಯ ಹಣವನುX ದುರುಪ ೕಗಪ ೊಂಡು ಜಂI0ಾ= ತಮl 2ೈಯhಕ xೆಸBನ
OೆಂಗಳQರು Jಾ) ಾಂತರ D.ೆಯ %ೆಲಮಂಗಲದ ಸೂಂqÉ ೊಪK Oೈ2ಾH ನ Oೈರ2ೇಶ\ರ
ನಗರದ ,ಾ,ಾ@ೕW .ೇಔM ನ 62ೇಶನ ಸಂAೆ/. 7380 ಅನುX ಖBೕ ರು9ಾರ. ಸದB
ಕ)ಯ ಪತ)ವನುX %ಾಂಕ 01/10/2008 ರಂದು %ೆಲಮಂಗಲ, ಉಪ-%ೋಂದ•ಾj ಾB
ಕnೇBಯ ,ಾಖ.ೆ ಸಂAೆ/. NMG-1-03248-2008-09, CD ನಂ. NMGD110 ಎಂದು
%ೋಂ,ಾqಸ.ಾ=,ೆ. %ಾಂಕ 01/10/2008 ರ ಕ)ಯ ಪತ) ದ ಪ) ಯನುX ಅನುಬಂಧ-6
ಅನುಬಂಧ
ಎಂದು ಸ ಸ.ಾ=,ೆ.
ಅಪ ಾಧ ಚಟುವI
ಚಟುವI ೆ-4:-
ಅಂದ ೆ %ಾಂಕ 20/04/2009 ರಂದು V)ೕಮ =Bgಾ (ಎ-2) ಇತರ cಾಲು,ಾರರ ಅಂದ ೆ
ನಮl ಅನುಮ qಲ,ೆ, ವಂಚ%ೆqಂದ ಮತು ಅcಾ) ಾ ಕ2ಾ= ರೂ. 10,00,000/-
ಸಂ3ೆdಯ Oಾ/ಂ| Aಾ9ೆqಂದ nೆ| ಸಂAೆ/. 451530 ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೆಯ 2ೈಯhಕ Oಾ/ಂ|
Aಾ9ೆ ಸಂ. SB-30425 ೆ< ವJಾ4ವ•ೆ ಾ ೊಂ ರು9ಾ ೆ.
ಅಪ ಾಧ ಚಟುವI
ಚಟುವI ೆ-5:-
ಾಂಕ 20/04/2009 ರಂದು ಮ ೊ ೕ ವಕು ಾ (ಎ-1) ಇತರ #ಾಲು%ಾರರ
ಅಂದ'ೆ ನಮ ಅನುಮ)*ಲ+%ೆ, ವಂಚ ೆ ಮತು ಅ#ಾ ಾ.ಕ/ಾ0 ರೂ. 10,00,000/-
ಸಂ3ೆ4ಯ 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆ*ಂದ :ೆ8 ಸಂ9ೆ7 ಮತು 451529 ಮೂಲಕ ಅವರ /ೈಯ=ಕ 6ಾ7ಂ8
9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ. SB-24274AೆB ವCಾDವEೆ ಾFAೊಂFರು ಾ'ೆ. ಅಪ'ಾಧ 4 ಮತು 5 ಅನುI
ಪ )JಂJಸುವ #ಾಲು%ಾKAೆ ಸಂ3ೆ4ಯ 6ಾ7ಂ8 3ೆLೕM ಂMನ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-7
ಅನುಬಂಧ-7
ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
10. Qದಲ ೆ ದೂರು%ಾರ ಮತು ಎರಡ ೆಯ ದೂರು%ಾರರ ಗಂಡ ಮತು 3 Kಂದ 4 ೆಯ
ದೂರು%ಾರರ ತಂ%ೆ ವಂಗತ TೆU ವಕು ಾ ಅವರು ಾಂಕ 09/12/2005 Kಂದ VಾKCೆ
ಬರುವಂ ೆ ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [Lನ ಟ \L]ಾ0ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಾಂಕ 09/12/2005
ರ :ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [L Fೕ^ನ ವ_ನರಚ ೆಯ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-8
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-6:
ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 ಮತು 2 ರವರು ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [L 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆ*ಂದ
ಇತರ #ಾಲು%ಾರರ ಅಂದ'ೆ ನಮ ಅನುಮ)*ಲ+ದ ಈ AೆಳCೆ ಉPೆ+ೕgಸPಾದ QತವನುI ಈ
Aೆಳ0ನಂ ೆ hಂಪiೆ %ಾj'ೆ (Withdrawal), ಸದK hಂಪiೆಯುkAೆಯನುI ಪ )JಂJಸುವ ೕ
ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [L 6ಾ7ಂ8 3ೆLೕM ಂMನ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9
ಸಂ9ೆ7 9 ಎಂದು
ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
Sl. No. Date Withdrawn By Cheque No. Amount Withdrawn
1. 18/11/2010 Self- ಸlಯಂ 36023 9,90,000/-
2. 18/11/2010 Self- ಸlಯಂ 36024 9,90,000/-
3. 18/11/2010 Self- ಸlಯಂ 36027 7,86,000/-
4. 18/11/2010 Self- ಸlಯಂ 36026 9,90,000/-
5. 18/11/2010 Self- ಸlಯಂ 36025 9,90,000/-
Total 47,46,000/-
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-7:
ಅ%ೇ ನ ಅಂದ'ೆ ಾಂಕ 18/11/2010 ರಂದು ಎ[. ವಕು ಾ (ಎ 1) ಮತು 0KVಾ (ಎ-2)
ಅವರು ]ಾರ ಒcnCೆಯನುI ಪiೆಯ%ೆ ಟ \L (Trustee) ಮತು ಟ [LUÉ Qೕಸ ಾಡುವ ಉ%ೆjೕಶ ಂದ
ಟ [Lನ ಹಣವನುI ದುರುವrೕಗಪF\Aೊಂಡು, ೆಲಮಂಗಲ ಪಟLಣದ ಸ/ೆD ನಂ.193/2 ರO+ 0-19
ಗುಂXೆ ಪKವ)D\ದ ಜ`ೕನನುI ಜಂa]ಾ0 ತಮ /ೈಯ=ಕ TೆಸKನO+ ಖKೕ \ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಸದK
ಕ ಯ ಪತ ವನುI ೆಲಮಂಗಲದ ಉಪ ೋಂದEಾuAಾK ಕ:ೇKಯO+ ತಮ /ೈಯ=ಕ TೆಸKನO+
%ಾಖPೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 NMG 1-04398-2010-11, CD ನಂ. NMGD167 ಯಂದು ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
ಸದK ಭೂ`ಯ ಒಟುL ಅಳ ೆಯು 20702.5 ಚದರ ಅF ಇರುತ%ೆ. ಾಂಕ 18/11/2010 ರ ಕ ಯ
ಪತ ದ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-10
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-8:
ೕPೆ )w\ದ ಪKವ)D\ದ ಭೂ`ಯನುI ತಮ /ೈಯ=ಕ TೆಸKನO+ ಖKೕ \ದ ನಂತರ, ಈ
ಭೂ`ಯನುI ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 ಮತು 2 ಅನುಕ ಮ/ಾ0 ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY ಟ [L Cೆ ಾಂಕ
01/12/2011 Kಂದ 29 ವಷDಗಳ ಅವuCೆ 1,00,000/- ರೂ.ಗಳy 6ಾFCೆCೆ (ಒಂದು ಲz ಾತ )
ಗು)CೆCೆ WೕಡPಾ0%ೆ. ಗು)Cೆ ಪತ ದ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-
ಅನುಬಂಧ 11 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-9.
ತದ ನಂತರ ಮ ೆ ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 ಮತು 2 ಈ Aೆಳ0ನ QತವನುI ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY
ಟ [L 9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 105400300001304 *ಂದ ಈ Aೆಳ0ನ ವ7=ಗಳ 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆCೆ
ವCಾD*\%ಾj'ೆ, ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY ಟ [L 9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 105400300001304 ಯ 6ಾ7ಂ8
3ೆLೕM ಂMನ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ -12 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ;
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-9.
ತದ ನಂತರ ಮ ೆ ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 ಮತು 2 ಈ Aೆಳ0ನ QತವನುI ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY
ಟ [L 9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 105400300001304 *ಂದ ಈ Aೆಳ0ನ ವ7=ಗಳ 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆCೆ
ವCಾD*\%ಾj'ೆ, ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY ಟ [L 9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 105400300001304 ಯ 6ಾ7ಂ8
3ೆLೕM ಂMನ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ -12 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ;
Sl. Date Transferred To Cheque Amount Withdrawn
No. No.
1. 28/06/2016 ಅಶlತ4 ಾ'ಾಯಣ ಆ .ಎ[ 38181154 19,60,000
2. 28/06/2016 ಅಶlತ4 ಾ'ಾಯಣ 38181151 8,82,000
3. 28/06/2016 ಮಧು'ಾ{ ಆ .|. 38181152 7,84,000
4. 28/06/2016 Vೊ7ೕ) ಇಂಡ\}ೕ[ 38181153 8,82,000
Total 45,08,000
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-10:
ಹಣ ವCಾDವEೆ]ಾದ ಮರು ನ/ೇ ಅಂದ'ೆ ಾಂಕ 29/06/2016 ರಂದು ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ
ಎ[. ವಕು ಾ (ಎ-1) ಅವರು 6ೆಂಗಳ~ರು Cಾ ಾಂತರ |Pೆ+ಯ %ೊಡ•ಬ€ಾ•ಪ_ರ ಾಲೂ+=ನ
%ೊಡ•6ೆಳವಂಗಲ Tೋಬwಯ 'ಾ ೕಶlರ Cಾ ಮದ ಸ/ೆD ನಂ.137/1ರO+ 2-30 ಗುಂXೆ ಜ`ೕನನುI
29/06/2016ರ ಕ ಯ ಪತ ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಖKೕ \%ಾj'ೆ. ಸದK ಕ ಯ ಪತ ವನುI %ೊಡ•ಬ€ಾ•ಪ_ರದ ಸ‚
K|3ಾ} ಕ:ೇKಯO+ DBP-1-03961-2016-17, CD ನಂ. DPBD399 ƒಂದು
ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸPಾ0%ೆ. ಾ'ಾಟದ ಒಟುL ಹಣ ರೂ. 22,00,000/- ಆ0ದುj. ಇದನುI ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ ಆ'ೋc
ಾ'ಾಟCಾರWCೆ ನಗದು ರೂಪದO+ #ಾವ)\%ಾj'ೆ. ಾಂಕ 29/06/2016ರ ಾ'ಾಟ ಪತ ದ
ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-13
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-11:
ಹಣ ವCಾDವEೆ]ಾದ ಮರು ನ/ೇ ಅಂದ'ೆ ಾಂಕ 29/06/2016 ರಂದು 0KVಾ ಎU (ಎ-2) ಅವರು
6ೆಂಗಳ~ರು Cಾ ಾಂತರ |Pೆ+ಯ %ೊಡ•ಬ€ಾ•ಪ_ರ ಾಲೂ+=ನ %ೊಡ•6ೆಳವಂಗಲ Tೋಬwಯ
'ಾ ೕಶlರ Cಾ ಮದ ಸ/ೆD ಸಂ9ೆ7 146/4ರO+ 1-38 ಗುಂXೆ ಜ`ೕನನುI ತಮ ವ7ಯ=ಕ 3ಾಮಥ7DದO+
1-38 ಗುಂXೆ ಜ`ೕನನುI /ೈಯ=ಕ TೆಸರO+ ಕ ಯ ಪತ ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಖKೕ \%ಾj'ೆ. ಸದK ಖKೕ
ಪತ ವನುI %ೊಡ•ಬ€ಾ•ಪ_ರದ ಸ‚ K|3ಾ} ಕ:ೇKಯO+ DBP-1-03961-2016-17, CD ನಂ.
DPBD399 %ೊಡ•ಬ€ಾ•ಪ_ರದ ಉಪ ೋಂದ. ಕ:ೇKಯO+ ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸPಾ0%ೆ. ಾ'ಾಟದ
ಒಟುL ಹಣ ರೂ. 15,60,000/-ಆ0ದುj, ಇದನುI ಎರಡ ೆಯ ಆ'ೋc ಾ'ಾಟCಾರWCೆ ನಗದು
ರೂಪದO+ #ಾವ)\%ಾj ೆ. ಾಂಕ 29/06/2016 ಕ ಯ ಪತ ದ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ-14
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು
ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
ಅಪ'
ಅಪ'ಾಧ ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ 12:
ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 ಮತು 2, ಟ [L ಹಣವನುI ಬಳ\Aೊಂಡು ಮ ೊಂದು ಭೂ`ಯನುI ಾಂಕ
01/12/2021 ರಂದು ಖKೕ \%ಾj'ೆ. ಈ ವ7ವTಾರವನುI ಪ )JಂJಸುವ ಾಂಕ 01/12/2021 ಟ [L
ನ 6ಾ7ಂ8 3ೆLೕM ಂM ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ - 15 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-13:
ಎ[. ವಕು ಾ (ಎ 1) ಮತು 0KVಾ (ಎ-2) ಅವರು ತಮ /ೈಯ=ಕ 3ಾಮಥ7DದO+ ಜಂa]ಾ0
6ೆಂಗಳ~ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂ+=ನ %ಾಸನಪ_ರ Tೋಬwಯ ಹುPೆ+ೕCೌಡನಹw• Cಾ ಮದ ಸ/ೆD ಸಂ9ೆ7 141
ರO+ 2-01 ಗುಂXೆ ಜ`ೕನನುI ಮತು 6ೆಂಗಳ~ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂ+=ನ %ಾಸನಪ_ರ Tೋಬwಯ
ಹುPೆ+ೕCೌಡನಹw• Cಾ ಮದ ಸ/ೆD ಸಂ9ೆ7 142ರO+ 2.00 ಎಕ'ೆ ಭೂ`ಯನುI ಾಂಕ 01/12/2021
ರಂದು ಖKೕ \%ಾj'ೆ. ಸದK ಕ ಯ ಪತ ವನುI %ಾಖPೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 rJ¹à-1-07932-2021-22, ¹r ನಂ.
DSPD898 ƒಂದು %ಾಸನಪ_ರದ ಉಪ ೋಂದEಾuAಾK ಕ:ೇKಯO+ ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸPಾ0%ೆ. ಟ \L
ಮತು ಟ [L Cೆ Qೕಸ ಾಡಲು ಈ ಖKೕ ಾಡPಾ0ದುj, ಒಟುL 4.01 ಗುಂXೆ ಭೂ`ಯನುI
ಆ'ೋcಗಳy ಜಂa]ಾ0 ಖKೕ ಸPಾ0%ೆ. ಾಂಕ 01/12/2021 ರ ಕ ಯ ಪತ ದ ಪ )ಯನುI
ಅನುಬಂಧ-16
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
11. ಹಷD ಇಂಟ ಾ7DಷನY ಸೂBY TೆಸKನO+ †ಾPೆ ನiೆಸಲು \Jಎ[ಇ Aೇಂ ೕಯ ¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀët
ಮಂಡw*ಂದ ಾನ7 ೆ ಪiೆಯಲು ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKಟಬY ಟ [L ಪರ/ಾ0 ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ
ಆ'ೋcಯು ಸO+\ದ ಾh) ಮತು %ಾಖPೆಗಳನುI AೋK ಾh) ಹಕುB Aಾƒj, 2005 ರ ಅFಯO+
ಾವ_ Aೇಂ ೕಯ #ೌ ಢ zಣ ಮಂಡwCೆ (\Jಎ[ಇ) ಅ|D ಸO+\ರು ೆ . ದೂರು%ಾರ ಸಂ9ೆ7 1
ಸO+\ದ ಾಂಕ 02/05/2023 ರ ಆaDಐ ಅ|Dಯ ಪ )ಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9
ಸಂ9ೆ7 17 ಎಂದು
ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ 14:
ೕPೆ Tೇwದ ಸದK ಅ|DCೆ ಾಂಕ 04/07/2023 ರಂದು \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡw*ಂದ ನಮCೆ
ಾh) \=Bದುj, \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡw*ಂದ ಪiೆದ ಾh) ಮತು %ಾಖPೆಗಳನುI ಪK ೕO\%ಾಗ,
ಆ'ೋcಗಳy, ಾಂಕ 21/11/2011 ರ ೋಂ%ಾ*ತ ಗು)Cೆ ಪತ ವನುI (ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9ೆ7 11)
)ರು‰ ನಕO ಾF%ಾj'ೆ ಎಂದು )wದು ಆŠತ ಮತು ಆಶ‹ಯD/ಾ0ರುತ%ೆ
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-15:
\Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡwಯ ಮುಂ%ೆ ಆ'ೋcಗಳy TಾಜರುಪF\ದ "ನಕO ಗು)Cೆ ಒಪnಂದ" ಪತ ದ
ೋಂದ. ಸಂ9ೆ7, ಾಂಕ, ಪzಗಳy ಮತು ಗFಗಳ kಷಯದO+ ೕOನ ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9ೆ7 11 AೆB
Tೊಲು)ದುj ಒಟುL ಚದರ ಅF ŒನI/ಾ0%ೆ, ಇದನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9ೆ7 11 ರ ಪ Aಾರ 24,842 ಚದರ
ಅFಯ ಬದಲು 89,220 ಚದರ ಅF ಎಂದು )ರು‰ ನಕO %ಾಖPೆ ಸೃŽL ಾF%ಾj'ೆ ಎಂದು )wದು
ಬಂ ರುತ%ೆ. ಹಷD ಇಂಟ ಾ7DಷನY ಪJ+8 ಸೂBY (ಎUಐcಎ[) TೆಸKನO+ †ಾPೆಯನುI ನiೆಸಲು
\Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡw ಸೂ‰\ದ ಾನದಂಡಗಳ ಪ Aಾರ 3ಾಕಷುL ಭೂ ಪ %ೇಶವನುI Tೊಂ %ೆjೕ/ೆ ಎಂದು
ೋKಸುವ ಉ%ೆjೕಶ ಂದ ನಕO ಪತ ಸೃŽL\ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಸದK ಅವ'ಾ ಕ ಕೃತ7ದ ಮೂಲಕ \Jಎ[ಇ
ಮಂಡwಇಂದ Qೕಸ ಂದ ಾನ7 ೆ ಪiೆ ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಸದK ಆ'ೋcಗಳy ಟ [L ಅನುI
QೕಸCೊwಸುವ ಉ%ೆjೕಶವನುI Tೊಂ ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 Cೆ ಸTಾಯ ಾಡುವ ಸಲು/ಾ0
ನಕO ಗು)Cೆ ಪತ ವನುI ರ‰ಸಲು ಮತು ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸಲು ಉಪ- ೋಂದEಾuAಾKಗಳy (ಎ-3)
ಸTಾಯ ಾF%ಾj'ೆ. \Jಎ
\Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡw
ಮಂಡwಯನುI
ಯನುI ಪ )Wuಸುವ
)Wuಸುವ ಅದರ ಅಧ7z
ಅಧ7zರು
7zರು (ಆ
ಆ'ೋc
ೋc ಸಂ.
ಸಂ 6)
ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ ಆ'ೋcrೕಂ Cೆ 3ೇKAೊಂಡು, ನಕO %ಾಖPೆಗಳನುI ಆಧK\ ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ
:ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [L Cೆ ಮತು ಟ \LಗOCೆ ವಂ‰ಸುವ ಉ%ೆjೕಶ ಂದ ಹಷD ಇಂಟ ಾ7ಶನY ಪJ+8
ಸೂBY Cೆ ಾನ7 ೆ ಯನುI WೕFರು ಾ'ೆ. \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡwಯು ಾಂಕ 04/07/2023 ರಂದು
ಕವ Pೆಟ ಮೂಲಕ ಗು)Cೆ ಒಪnಂದದ ನಕO ಪತ ದ ಪ )ಯನುI ಒXಾL0 ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9
ಸಂ9ೆ7 18 ಮತು
19 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-16:
ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ ಆ'ೋcಯು, ೕOನ ಗು)Cೆ ಒಪnಂದದ (Lease Deed) ನಕO ಪತ ದ Vೊ ೆCೆ,
ಮ ೊಂದು ನಕO %ಾಖPೆಯನುI (Certificate of Land "ಭೂ ಪ ಾಣಪತ ") ಸTಾ ಸೃŽL\ರು ಾ'ೆ.
ಸದK ನಕO %ಾಖPೆಯನುI (Certificate of Land ಭೂ ಪ ಾಣಪತ ") \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡwಯ
ಾನ7 ೆಯನುI ೆಲಮಂಗಲ ಎUಐcಎ[ †ಾPೆCೆ ಪiೆಯುವ ದುರು%ೆjೕಶ ಂದ ಸೃŽL\ರು ಾ'ೆ. ಸದK
ನಕO %ಾಖPೆಯನುI ಾಂಕ 19/05/2014 ರಂದು \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡwCೆ ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ ಆ'ೋcಯು
ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸಲnaL%ೆ ಎಂದು TಾಜರುಪF\%ಾj'ೆ. ಈ %ಾಖPೆಯು ನಕO %ಾಖPೆ]ಾ0ದುj, ಇದು
ಸುಳy•, ೋಂದ. ಸಂ9ೆ7, ಾಂಕ, ಮು%ೆ , ಸh ಮತು kಷಯವನುI Tೊಂ %ೆ. ಇದು ಕ ಾDಟಕದ
ಉಪ- ೋಂದEಾuAಾK ಕ:ೇKಯO+ ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸPಾದ ]ಾವ_%ೇ ೈಜ %ಾಖPೆrಂ Cೆ
Tೊಂ Aೆ]ಾಗುವ_ ಲ+. ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1 AೆB ಸTಾಯ ಾಡುವ ಸಲು/ಾ0 ೆಲಮಂಗಲ
ಉಪ ೋಂದEಾuAಾKಗಳy ಭೂ`ಯ ಪ ಾಣಪತ ವನುI ರ‰ಸಲು ಮತು ೋಂ%ಾ*ಸಲು ಸTಾಯ
ಾF%ಾj'ೆ. \Jಎ[ಇ ಮಂಡwಯನುI ಪ )Wuಸುವ ಅದರ ಅಧ7z
ಅಧ7zರು
7zರು (ಆ
ಆ'ೋc
ೋc ಸಂ.
ಸಂ 6) ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ
ಆ'ೋcrಂ Cೆ 3ೇKAೊಂಡು, ನಕO %ಾಖPೆಗಳನುI ಆಧK\ ೕ ೕW/ಾಸ :ಾKXೇಬY ಟ [LCೆ
ಮತು ಟ \LಗOCೆ ವಂ‰ಸುವ ಉ%ೆjೕಶ ಂದ ಹಷD ಇಂಟ ಾ7ಶನY ಪJ+8 ಸೂBYCೆ ಾನ7 ೆ ಯನುI
WೕFರು ಾ'ೆ. ಾಂಕ 19/05/2014 ರ ಸದK ನಕO "ಭೂ ಪ ಾಣಪತ " %ಾಖPೆಯನುI
(Certificate of Land) %ಾಖPೆಯನುI ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ9
ಸಂ9ೆ7 20 ಎಂದು ಸO+ಸPಾ0%ೆ.
= `ನ
`ನY ಚಟುವaA
ಚಟುವaAೆ
aAೆ-17:
ಒಂ%ಾ ೆ ಆ'ೋcಯು, #ಾಲು%ಾKAೆ ಸಂ3ೆ4Cೆ 3ೇKದ ಆ\ಯನುI ಎUಐcಎ[ †ಾPೆ ನiೆಸಲು
ಬಳ\ದುj ದೂರು%ಾರರು ಸದK #ಾಲು%ಾKAೆ ಸಂ3ೆ4ಯ #ಾಲು%ಾರ'ಾ0ರುತ'ೆ. ಆ'ೋc ಸಂ9ೆ7 1
ಮತು 2 ಎPಾ+ #ಾಲು%ಾರರ ಒcnCೆ*ಲ+%ೆ ಎUಐcಎ[ †ಾPೆ ನiೆಸಲು #ಾಲು%ಾKAೆ ಸಂ3ೆ4ಯ
ಆ\ಯನುI ಅಕ ಮ ಮತು Aಾನೂನು6ಾhರ/ಾ0 ಬಳಸು)%ಾj'ೆ.
12. ಹಷD ಆಸn ೆ #ಾಲು%ಾKAೆ ಸಂ3ೆ4ಯ TೆಸKನO+ 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆಯನುI ೆ'ೆಯಲು ಮತು WವDhಸಲು
ಾವ_ ಆರಂಭದO+ ನಮ ಒcnCೆಯನುI WೕF%ೆjವ_. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಎPಾ+ #ಾಲು%ಾರರ ಸಮ )ಯಂ ೆ, ಹಷD
ಆಸn ೆ ಯ TೆಸKನO+ 6ಾ7ಂ8 9ಾ ೆ ಸಂ9ೆ7 105406011000004, (ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ 89310400000002-
«dAiÀiÁ¨ÁåAPï) -«dAiÀiÁ¨ÁåAPï. %ಾಸರಹw•, †ಾ9ೆಯO+ ೆ'ೆಯPಾ0%ೆ.
ನ ಚಟುವ ೆ-18:
ೕ ನ ಾಂ ಾ ೆ ಇ ಾUÀÄå ಸಹ, ಆ ೋ ಸಂ ೆ 1 ಮತು" 2 ಎ$ಾ% &ಾಲು ಾರರ ಒ *+ೆ ಮತು"
ಅನುಮ-.ಲ% ೆ ದೂರು ಾರ ಸಂ ೆ 1 ಮತು" ದೂರು ಾರ -2 0ಂದ 4 ರ ಪ- ಮತು" ತಂ ೆಯ
ಸ3ಯನು4 ನಕ 6ಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಹಷ9 :ಕ ಮತು" ಜನರ ¸ÉÆÖÃ< ಾ ಂ ಾ ೆ ಸಂ ೆ
105400301000453 ಾ ಂ ಆ= ಬ ೋ?ಾ, . ಾಸರಹ@A Bಾ ೆ (ಹCೆಯ DಜEಾ ಾ ಂ -
89310200001160) Fೆಸ0ನ % ಮ ೊ"ಂದು ಾ ಂ ಾ ೆಯನು4 GೕಸHಂದ ೆ ೆH ಾ ೆ. ಾ ೆ
(ಸಂ ೆ 105400301000453) ೆ ೆಯುವ ನಮೂIೆಗಳL ಮತು" ಇತರ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳ ಪ -ಯನು4
ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ ೆ 21 ಎಂದು ಸ %ಸ$ಾO ೆ. DಜEಾ ಾಂ , ಾಸರಹ@A Bಾ ೆಯ %
ವ ವPಾQಪಕ ಾOದ ಆ ೋ ನಂ.3, ಸದ0 ಅ ೋ ಗ@+ೆ (ಆ ೋ ನಂ.1 ಮತು" 2) ಾ ೆ ೆ ೆಯಲು
ಸಹಕ0R ಾ ೆ ಮತು" ಸಂPೆQಯ ಇತರ &ಾಲು ಾರ0+ೆ Gೕಸ 6ಾಡುವ ಉ ೇಶHಂದ ಸದ0 ಆ ೋ
ಅವ ೊಂH+ೆ Bಾ ೕ$ಾOರು ಾ" ೆ.
ನ ಚಟುವ ೆ-19:
ೕ ನ ಅನUಕೃತ ಾಂ ಾ ೆ ಅಲ% ೆ, ಆ ೋ ಸಂ ೆ 1 ಮತು" 2 ಮ ೊ"ಂದು ಾಂ
ಾ ೆಯನು4 ಹಷ9 :ಕ W ಮತು" ಜನರ PೊXೕ< Fೆಸ0ನ % ೆ ೆHರುತ" ೆ, ಸದ0 ಾ ಂ ಾ ೆ
ಸಂ ೆ 54060200000104 ಆOದು, ಾಂ ಆ= ಬ ೋ?ಾ, Iೆಲಮಂಗಲ Bಾ ೆಯ % ಾ ೆ
ೆ ೆHರುತ" ೆ. ಸದ0 ಾಂ ಾ ೆಯನು4 ಎ$ಾ% &ಾಲು ಾರರ ಅಂದ ೇ ನಮYಗಳ ಒ *+ೆ ಮತು"
ಅU ಾರDಲ% ೆ FೆಚುZವ0 ಾ ೆಯನು4 ಅಕ ಮ[ಾO ೆ ೆHರುತ" ೆ ಮತು" ಈ ಾ ೆ.ಂದ PಾಕಷುX
ಅನUಕೃತ ವ3[ಾಟುಗಳನು4 6ಾ: ಾ ೆ. ಾ ೆ (ಸಂ ೆ 54060200000104) ೆ ೆಯುವ
ನಮೂIೆಗಳL ಮತು" ಇತರ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳ ಪ -ಯನು4 ಅನುಬಂಧ ಸಂ ೆ 22 ಎಂದು ಸ %ಸ$ಾO ೆ.,
ಾಂ ಆ= ಬ ೋ?ಾ, Iೆಲಮಂಗಲ Bಾ ೆಯ % ವ ವPಾQಪಕ ಾOದ ಆ ೋ ನಂ.4. ಸದ0
ಅ ೋ ಗ@+ೆ (ಅಂದ ೇ ಆ ೋ ನಂ.1 ಮತು" 2) ಾ ೆ ೆ ೆಯಲು ಸಹಕ0R ಾರ ಮತು" ಸಂPೆQಯ
ಇತರ &ಾಲು ಾರ0+ೆ Gೕಸ 6ಾಡುವ ಉ ೇಶHಂದ ಸದ0 ಅ ೋ ಅವ ೊಂH+ೆ
Bಾ ೕ$ಾOರು ಾ" ೆ.
ನ ಚಟುವ ೆ-20:
ಆ ೋ ಸಂ ೆ . 1 ಮತು" 2 ಎ$ಾ% &ಾಲು ಾರರ ಒ *+ೆ ಮತು" ಅU ಾರDಲ% ೆ &ಾಲು ಾ0 ೆಯ
ಸಂPೆQಯ ಆR"ಯ % [ಾRಸು-"ದು ಸದ0 ಕೃತ ವ^ ಅವ ಾHಕ ಅ-ಕ ಮಣ[ಾOರುತ" ೆ.
ೕ ನ ಸಂದಭ9 ಮತು" ವಸು"RQ-ಯನು4 ಾ0R. Iಾವ^ aಮYನು4 Dನಮ [ಾO
Dನಂ-R ೊಳLAವ^ ೆಂದ ೆ;
1. ಆ ೋ ಗಳ Dರುದb ಐ R ಮತು" ಇತರ ಸಂಬಂUತ ಾನೂನುಗಳ ಅ:ಯ % ಎ=ಐಆ< ಅನು4
Iೊಂದ.ಸುವ^ದು.
2. ೕ ನ ಸಂದಭ9 ಮತು" Dಷಯವನು4 ಸಂಪdಣ9[ಾO ಮತು" aಷ*e[ಾತ[ಾO ತa ೆ 6ಾ: ಮತು"
ಆ ೋ ಯ ಅಪ ಾಧವನು4 Pಾfೕತುವ:ಸಲು ಅಗತ Dರುವ ಎ$ಾ% PಾegಗಳL ಮತು" ಾಖ$ೆಗಳನು4
ಸಂಗ 3ಸುವ^ದು
3. ಆ ೋ ಗಳನು4 ಬಂUR ಮತು" ಅವರನು4 Dhಾರiೆ ಮತು" jkೆ+ಾO ಸಕ ಮ Iಾ Eಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ
Fಾಜರುಪ:ಸುವ^ದು
ಧನ [ಾದಗಳL ಮತು" ಅfನಂದIೆಗCೆl ಂH+ೆ
ಸ3/-"
The complaint lists out 20 criminal activities. The period of the said
criminal activity range from 01-10-2008 till 04-07-2023. Therefore,
it is not a case where the projection of the crime comes about for
the first time in 2023 of the years 2008, 2016 and 2017. The
alleged criminal activities are succinctly brought out in the
statement of objections. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to
paraphrase the said paragraphs to this order:
".... .... ....
13. There are several criminal activities committed by S.
Shivakumar (A-1) and Girija (A-2) which amount to criminal
breach of trust and criminal misappropriation as follows;
a. Criminal Activity-1 and 2: On, 1/10/2008 Mrs.
Girija (A-2) fraudulently and dishonestly
transferred of Rs. 10,00,000/- to her bank account
bearing No. SB-30425 through cheque No. 766072
and No. 766073 respectively from firm's bank
Account without any authorization from the
Respondents.
b. Criminal Activity-2: On, 1/10/2008 Mrs. Girija
(A-2) fraudulently and dishonestly transferred of
another Rs. 5,00,000/- to her bank account bearing
No. SB-30425 through cheque No. 766072 from
firm's bank Account without any valid reason or
authorization from the other partners. The copy of
the bank firms bank statement produced as
Annexure-R5 reflecting money transferred to
Petitioner No. 2's account.
c. Criminal Activity-3: On the same day again i.e
01/10/2008, Petitioner No. 1 S. Shivakumar (A-1)
and Petitioner No. 2 Girija (A-2) have misused the
funds of the firm and purchased the plot No. 7380,
at Dadapeer Layout, Byraweshwara Nagar,
Sondekoppa Bypass, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural
District, through sale deed dated 01/10/2008,
registered as document No. NMG-1-03248-2008-
09, CD No. NMGD110 in the office of the sub-
registrar, Nelamangala in their personal names
without disclosing their partnership status or
obtaining consent from the other partners. The
copy of the sale deed is produced herewith as
Annexure-R6.
d. Criminal Activity-4: On -20/04/2009, Petitioner
No. 2 Mrs. Girija (A-2) fraudulently and dishonestly
transferred of Rs. 10,00,000/- to her bank account
bearing No. SB-30425 through cheque No. 451530
from firm's bank Account without any valid
authorization from the other partners.
e. Criminal Activity-5: On -20/04/2009 again
Petitioner No. 1 Mr. Shivakumar (A-1) fraudulently
and dishonestly transferred of Rs. 10,00,000/- to
his bank account bearing No. SB-24274 through
cheque No. 451529 from firm's bank Account
without any valid authorization from the other
partners/Respondents. The copy of the bank
statement reflecting the crime 4 & 5 is produced as
Annexure-R7.
f. Respondent No. 1 and Late H Shivakumar who is
the Husband of Respondent No. 2 and father of
Respondent No. 3 and 4 was the Trustee of Sri
Srinivasa Charitable Trust with effect from
09/12/2005. The copy of the reconstitution of
Charitable Trust deed dated 09/12/2005 till his
demise on 21/04/2019 is produced as Annexure-
R8.
g. Criminal Activity-6: The Petitioner No. 1 and 2
have withdrawn the following amount from Sri
Srinivasa Charitable Trust without any
authorization from Respondent who was also the
Trustee. The copy of the Bank statement reflecting
below withdrawal is produced as Annexure-R9;
Sl. No. Date Withdrawn By Cheque No. Amount Withdrawn
1. 18/11/2010 Self 36023 9,90,000/-
2. 18/11/2010 Self 36024 9,90,000/-
3. 18/11/2010 Self 36027 7,86,000/-
4. 18/11/2010 Self 36026 9,90,000/-
5. 18/11/2010 Self 36025 9,90,000/-
Total 47,46,000/-
h. Criminal Activity -7: On the same day i.e
18/11/2010, Petitioner No. 1 and 2 S.
Shivakumar (A-1) and Girija (A-2) respectively in
their personal capacity have misused the funds of
the trust and purchased 0-19 Guntas of converted
land in Survey No. 193/2 situated at Nelamangala
Town, Byraveswara Nagar, Near Basavanadevara
Mutta, Sondekoppa Circele, N.H 4, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru-562123, through sale deed dated
18/11/2010, registered as document No. NMG-1-
04398-2010-11, CD No. NMGD167 in the office of
the sub-registrar, Nelamangala in their personal
names without disclosing their trustee status or
obtaining consent from Respondents. The said
purchase was made to defraud the Trustee and the
Trust. The copy of the sale deed produced herewith
as Annexure-R10.
i. Criminal Activity-8: Following the purchase of the
converted land in their personal names, the said
land was fraudulently leased by Petitioner No. 1
and 2 respectively to Sri Srinivasa Charitable Trust
for the Rent of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) per
month for a period of 29 years commencing from
01/12/2011 without disclosing their ownership of
the land or obtaining consent from Respondents
who were also trustees. The copy of the Lease
deed is produced as Annexure-R11.
j. Criminal Activity-9: Again Petitioner No. 1 and 2
have transferred the following amount from Sri
Srinivasa Charitable Trust Account
No.105400300001304, without any valid
authorization from Respondents. The copy of the
bank statement produced as Annexure-R12;
Sl. Date Transferred To Cheque Amount Withdrawn
No. No.
1. 28/06/2016 Ashwathanarayana 38181154 19,60,000
R.S
2. 28/06/2016 Ashwathanarayana 38181151 8,82,000
3. 28/06/2016 Madhuraj R.G 38181152 7,84,000
4. 28/06/2016 Jyothi Industries 38181153 8,82,000
Total 45,08,000
k. Criminal Activity-10: On the next day of
transferring the money i.e 29/06/2016, Petitioner
No. 1 S. Shivakumar (A-1) in his personal capacity
has purchased 2-30 Guntas of land in Survey No.
137/1 situated at Rameshwara Village,
Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddballapur Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District, through sale deed dated
29/06/2016, registered as document No. DBP-1-
03961-2016-17, CD No. DPBD399 in the office of
the sub-registrar, Doddaballapura. The total
consideration of the sale is Rs. 22,00,000/- which
was paid by Petitioner No. 2 to the Vendor by way
of cash. The copy of the sale deed produced
herewith as Annexure-R13.
l. Criminal Activity-11: On the very next day of
transferring the money i.e 29/06/2016, Petitioner
No. 2 Girija H (A-2) in her personal capacity has
purchased 1-38 Guntas of land in Survey No. 146/4
situated at Rameshwara Village, Doddabelavangala
Hobli, Doddballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District,
through sale deed dated 29/06/2016, registered as
document No. DBP-1-03963-2016-17, CD No.
DPBD399 in the office of the sub-registrar,
Doddaballapura. The total consideration of the sale
is Rs. 15,60,000/- which was paid by Petitioner No.
2 to the Vendor by way of cash. The copy of the
sale deed produced herewith as Annexure-R14.
m. Criminal Activity -12: Petitioner No. 1 and 2
again have purchased the land using the trust
money, the copy of the bank statement produced
as Annexure-R15 reflecting this transaction.
n. Criminal Activity-13: Petitioner No. 1 and 2, S.
Shivakumar (A-1) and Girija (A-2) respectively in
their personal capacity have purchased 2-01
Guntas of land in Survey No. 141 situated at
Hullegowdanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District and 2.00
Acre land in Survey No. 142 situated at
Hullegowdanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District, through
sale deed dated 01/12/2021, registered as
document No. DSP-1-07932-2021-22, CD No.
DSPD898 in the office of the sub-registrar,
Dasanapura. The said purchase was made to
defraud the Trustee and the Trust. The copy of the
sale deed produced herewith as Annexure-R16.
o. Respondents filed an application with Central Board
of Secondary Education (CBSE), under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
seeking information and documents submitted by
Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the Sri Srinivasa
Charitable Trust for obtaining affiliation from CBSE
for running a school under its name and style
Harsha International Public School. The copy of the
RTI Application dated 02/05/2023 filed by
Respondent No. 1 is produced as Annexure No.
R17.
p. Criminal Activity-14: Respondent have received
the information from CBSE Board on 04/07/2023
pursuant to the application. On examination of the
information and documents received from CBSE
Board, they were shocked and surprised to know
that Petitioner No. 1 and 2 have manipulated and
fabricated the registered lease deed dated
21/11/2011 (Annexure No.11).
q. Criminal Activity-15: The "Deed of Lease
Agreement" produced by Petitioners before CBSE
Board is identical to Annexure No. 11 above in
terms of registration number, date, parties, and
boundaries but differs in the total land area, which
is stated as 89,220 Sq. Ft instead of 24,842 Sq.
Ft as per Annexure No.11. This action of
Petitioners manipulating the registered lease deed
to show that the total leased land measured
89,220 Sq. Ft is nothing short of fraudulent,
intending to deceive CBSE Board and the Trust to
fraudulently secure affiliation by showing that they
have sufficient land area as per the norms
prescribed by CBSE Board for running a school
under its name and style Harsha International
Public School (HIPS). The copy of the fabricated
deed of lease agreement as received by CBSE
Board under its covering letter dated 04/07/2023
are collectively produced as Annexure No. R18
and R19 respectively.
r. Criminal Activity-16: It is further submitted that,
in addition to the fabricated deed of lease
agreement above, Petitioners have also produced
another forged document named as "Certificate of
Land", claimed to be registered by Accused No. 3
on 19/05/2014 in favour of CBSE Board to show
that the total leased land measured 89,220 Sq. Ft
on 19/05/2014, which is nothing but forged
document. This document produced as Annexure
No.R20, is a forged document as it bears a false
registration number, date, stamp, seal, signature,
and content, which do not match with any genuine
document registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Karnataka.
s. Criminal Activity-17: It is submitted that the
Petitioner used the adjacent firm property which
belongs to the firm and the Respondents are
partners of the said firm for running Harsha
International Public School without their knowledge
or consent. Petitioners are illegally using the firm
property without the consent of all partners.
t. It is submitted that the Respondent had initially
given his consent to open and operate the bank
account in the name of Harsha Hospital partnership
firm, based on the consent of all partners the bank
account was opened bearing Account No.
105406011000004, (Old: 89310400000002-
Vijayabank) Dasarahalli Branch (Harsha Hospital).
The copy of the account opening forms produced as
(Annexure No. 4 above).
u. Criminal Activity-18: In addition to the bank
account above, Petitioners have fraudulently
opened another bank account in the name of
Harsha Medical and General Store Account No.
105400301000453 by forging the signatures of
Respondent No. 1 and Husband and father of
Respondent No. 2 to 4, (Old Vijaya Bank-
89310200001160) Dasarahalli Branch without the
consent and authorization of all partners and they
have made lot of unauthorized transactions from
this account. The copy of the account opening
forms and other documents produced as
Annexure No. R21. The Accused No. 3, who was
the branch manager of Vijaya Bank at Dasarahalli
Branch, abetted and facilitated the opening of this
account by the Petitioners, despite knowing that
they were not authorized to do so by the other
partners of the firm. The Accused No. 3 also failed
to verify the genuineness of the signatures and
documents submitted by the Accused No. 1 & 2
and acted in collusion with them to cheat the other
partners of the firm.
v. Criminal Activity-19: In addition to the
unauthorized bank account above, the Petitioners
again opened an additional account in the name of
Harsha Medicals and General Store Account No.
54060200000104, (Bank of Baroda) Dasarahalli
Branch without the consent and authorization from
all partners including Respondents herein and have
made lot of unauthorized transactions from this
account. The copy of the account opening forms
and other documents produced as Annexure No.
R22. The Accused No. 4, who was also the branch
manager of Bank of Baroda at Dasarahalli Branch,
continued to assist and support the Accused No. 1
& 2 in opening this account by the Petitioners,
despite being aware that they were not authorized
to do so by the other partners of the firm. The
Accused No. 3 also failed to verify the documents
submitted by the Accused No. 1 & 2 and acted in
connivance with them to cheat the other partners
of the firm.
14. The Respondents recently learns that the Petitioner
No. 1 has again committed the similar offence of forgery for the
purpose of obtaining the continuation of affiliation from Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka. The copy of
the forged Deed of Lease Agreement is produced as Annexure-
R23. The same has been informed to Respondent No. 5 by
way of letter dated 15/01/2024, the copy of the letter
addressed to Respondent No. 5 is produced as Annexure R24."
Based on the above allegations, the crime is registered on
17-11-2023. The petition is preferred on 04-01-2024. Interim
order is granted subsequently. No investigation worth the name is
conducted before the grant of interim order even.
8. It is not that the allegations against the petitioners are
totally vague or bald. The projection of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner is that the issue is purely civil in nature and,
therefore, this Court must interfere. He has sought to place reliance
upon four judgments of the Apex Court viz., (i) MALA
CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF TELANGANA1; (ii) URMILA DEVI v.
BALRAM2; (iii) S.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA3 and (iv) ANUKUL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P4 to
buttress his submission that the proceedings which are purely civil
in nature have been given a cloak of criminality and, therefore,
further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued. There can
no qualm about the principles laid down by the Apex Court therein.
Those were the offences only under Sections 406 and 420 of the
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1474
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1574
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575
Criminal Appeal No.4250 of 2025 decided on 24-09-2025
IPC. The Apex Court, owing to the facts obtaining in those cases,
holds that setting criminal into motion was an abuse of the process
of law. In MALA CHOUDHARY supra, the Apex Court was
considering the crime and the pleadings in a suit for specific
performance filed by the complainant being identical. Therefore, it
was observed that a civil case was given a cloak of criminality. In
URMILA DEVI supra the High Court had refused to quash the
proceedings. The Apex Court quashes the proceedings on the score
that the issue between the two was concerning a Will and the
dispute was between the members of the family. In
S.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI supra, the case arose out of a private
complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate for plethora of
offences. The Apex Court notices the checkered history of the case
before it, follows the judgment in DELHI RACE CLUB (1940)
LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - (2024) 10 SCC 690
and holds that Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC could not have been
alleged together in the facts obtaining in the case therein. ANUKUL
SINGH supra is also rendered on the facts obtaining therein.
9. In the case at hand, the complaint is noted hereinabove.
The allegations are also noted hereinabove. In the light of the facts
in the case, investigation in the least would become necessary.
Investigation cannot be scuttled at this incipient stage on the plea
of the petitioners that it is purely civil in nature. There are scores
and scores of cases where the Apex Court or this Court has
obliterated the cases at the stage of crime. They are owing to the
facts of each case. There can no straight jacket formula that every
case that projects ingredients of civil wrong and similar facts
projecting criminal culpability, should be quashed. The Apex Court
in KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 5, 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
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
(2021) 9 SCC 35
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."
10. The Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA
INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 6, has
held as follows:
".... .... ....
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to
abuse of process of law.After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure."
11. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH v. KUNWAR SINGH7, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we
are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the
limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by
enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present
stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the
cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to
(2021) 19 SCC 401
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668
in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also
noted that a person who is required to approve a financial
proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility.
There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities
which have been committed in the course of the work of the
'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health
Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be
scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the
trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial
after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court
has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed
enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not
warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving
financial irregularities in the course of the
administration of a public scheme. A final report has
been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after
investigation.
12. The Apex Court in the case of SOMJEET MALLICK v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND,8 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the
impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of
deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the
case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not,
the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the
complaint, including the materials collected during
investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be
taken at their face value so as to determine whether a
prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against
the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The
correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this
stage.
(2024) 10 SCC 527
16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute
provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential
ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact
which may be inferred from the act in question as well
as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the
accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the
accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire,
has failed to pay hire charges for months together,
while making false promises for its payment, a prima
facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part
of the accused, is made out which may require
investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is
quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing
short of an act which thwarts a legitimate
investigation.
17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia
of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR
discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to
be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but
the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to
find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence
has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is
not required to ascertain as to which specific offence
has been committed.
18. It is only after investigation, at the time of
framing charge, when materials collected during
investigation are before the court, the court has to
draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence
the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the
court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR
alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused
which, if supported by materials, would disclose
commission of a cognizable offence, investigation
should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.
19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not
become infructuous on submission of a police report
under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report
has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay
on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to
the materials submitted in support of the police report
before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential
proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when
the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest
conduct of the accused."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the
judgments rendered by the Apex Court as noted hereinabove, the
matter would require investigation.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no warrant to entertain
the petition at this juncture, the petition stands dismissed.
Interim order if any, operating shall stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
