SMT. SUSHMA PANIGRAHI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 6849 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SUSHMA PANIGRAHI,
W/O SMRUTI RANJAN SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA,
PRESENT OFFICE AT
GEORGE TOWN BRANCH,
CHENNAI METRO REGION.
2. SRI. RAGHUKUMAR K,
S/O LATE KALACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GOLD SMITH, BANK OF BARODA,
BANK OF BARODA,
HOSAHALLI BRANCH,
MOGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SWAROOP S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY K R SAGAR POLICE STATION,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
S R PATNA TQ,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571607,
REP BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-01.
2. SMT. LAVANYA N.M,
NO.8338/10, BASAVANNA LAYOUT,
BACKSIDE OF CITIZEN SCHOOL,
HULLAHALLI ROAD,
NANJANAGUDU,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEEDING OF
K.R. SAGAR POLICE STATION, FIR NO. 00003 OF 2021 DTD
06/01/2021 UNDER SEC 498-A/420/409/468 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE AND ALSO THE CORRESPONDING PROCEEDINGS
OF CRIMINAL CASE NO.3697 OF 2021 PENDING BEFORE THE
PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATTANA,
WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT HAS MALICIOUSLY, FRIVOLOUSLY
AND BASELESSLY INITIATED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND
AFTER COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED THE
ALLEGED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 120B/420 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC
(ANNEXURE-A AND A1) IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
CONCERNED ONLY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Swaroop S, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No1, Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.5 and 6 in
C.C.No.3697/2021, have filed the present Writ Petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the
following prayers:
"In the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to:
A. Issue a Writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing
the investigational proceeding of K.R. Sagar
Police Station, FIR No.00003 of 2021 dated
06.01.2021 under Sections 498-
A/420/409/468 of the Indian Penal Code and
also the corresponding proceedings of Criminal
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
Case No.3697 of 2021 pending before the
Principle Civil Judge and JMFC,
Srirangapattana, wherein the Respondent has
maliciously, frivolously and baselessly initiated
criminal proceeding and after completion of
investigation submitted the alleged charge
sheet for the offenses punishable under
Sections 120B/420 read with Section 34 IPC.
(Annexure-A & A1) in so for as Petitioners
concerned only.
B. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of Justice and Equity."
3. Facts of the case are as under:
(a) Upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.2,
K.R.Sagar Police, Srirangapatna Circle, Mandya District,
registered a case in Crime No.3/2021, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 409, 468 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
(b) However, after thorough investigation, charge sheet
came to be filed for the offences under Sections 120B, 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(c) As per the factual aspects found in column No.17 of
the charge sheet, it reveals that respondent No.2 had loan
transactions with Bank of Baroda by pledging the gold
ornaments belonging to her. She lost her husband. Her
parents-in-law said to have borrowed some money from the
very same bank in different loan accounts and when the
respondent No.2 was directed to clear the loan with an
understanding that the jewelleries pledged by her in respect of
her individual loan would be returned, respondent No.2 cleared
all the outstanding amount in her loan accounts. Jewelleries
were released from the pledge in view of the closure of the loan
accounts of respondent No.2.
(d) However, Bank of Baroda contended that
voluntarily, respondent No.2 agreed to re-pledge the same
jewelleries, as security for the loan transactions of her parents-
in-law. When the respondent No.2 was not given the custody
of the jewelleries pledged by her even after clearing her loan
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
account, a complaint came to be lodged which was registered in
Crime No.3/2021.
(e) After thorough investigation as aforesaid, charge
sheet came to be filed wherein it has been alleged that the
present petitioners being the employees of the bank, colluded
with the parents-in-law of respondent No.2 in creating
documents as if the respondent No.2 has re-pledged the gold
ornaments to secure the loan accounts of her parents-in-law
and therefore, there is a conspiracy resulting in wrongful loss to
the respondent No.2 and wrongful gain to the bank as well as
her parents-in-law.
(f) Filing of the charge sheet insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned, is challenged in this petition on
following grounds:
FOR THAT the impugned proceeding is a gross
abuse of the process of court which if allowed
to continue for a single day more beyond the
stage it has already reached, will degenerate
itself into a weapon of harassment and
persecution and as such the same is liable to
be quashed forthwith for the ends of justice.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
FOR THAT it is expedient in the interest of
justice, to uphold the dignity of law that the
impugned proceeding is quashed.
FOR THAT it is apparent that there is no
dispute to the fact as alleged by the
respondent no.2/complainant and the same
relates to some family dispute as in every loan,
the respondent no.2/complainant has made
her Mother-in-law as an accused.
FOR THAT Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code defines the offence Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property and
the punishment thereof. It says: Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable
of being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
There are certain essentials of elements of
Section 420:
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
Cheating;
Dishonest inducement to deliver
property or to make, alter or destroy
any valuable security or anything
which is sealed or is capable of being
converted into a valuable security
Mens rea of the accused at the time of
making the inducement.
Making of a false representation is one of the
essential ingredients to institute the offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order to
bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is
not merely satisfactory to prove at a false
representation had been made, but it is further
necessary to prove that the representation was
false to the knowledge of the accused and was
made in order to deceive the complainant.
Section 24 defines that what is "acting
dishonestly". When the doing of any act or not
doing of any act causes wrongful gain of
property to one person or a wrongful loss of
property to a person, the said act is done
dishonestly. Section 25 defines the term
"Fraudulently". It says that a person is said to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing
with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
Mens rea is a legal phrase which used to define
the mental state of a person while committing
a crime and that should be intentional. It can
refer to a general intent to break the law or a
specific prearranged plan to commit a
particular offense. To prove that there was an
intention to cheat at the time of making the
misrepresentation; and this fact is to be proved
on the basis of all the subsequent conduct as
acts and omissions of the accused. Therefore,
all the acts and omissions of the accused must
be clearly and legibly set out right from the
date of making of false representation, till the
filing of the complaint. It must be shown that
there is a failure of the promise which was
made. It must be shown that there was no
effort on the part of accused to perform his
promise. The test of prudent man must be
applied to appreciate the evidence on record.
In the instant case, the opposite party has
failed to show case any of the above elements.
Whereas, there is no laches/lacunas on the part
of the petitioners and they acted as per the
requests and consents of the respondent
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
no.2/complainant and the Bank's rules and
regulations.
FOR THAT Section 120B of IPC, it is difficult to
establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all,
but at the same time, in absence of any
evidence to show meeting of minds between
the conspirators for the intended object of
committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold
a person guilty for offences under Section 120-
B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there,
on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to
be adequate for connecting the accused with
the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.
This was observed by Hon'ble R. Subhash
Reddy, J in the matter of Praveen @ Sonu vs.
The State of Haryana- [Criminal Appeal No.
1571 of 2021]
.
It is submitted that except the alleged
confessional statements of respondent
no.2/complainant, there was no other
acceptable evidence to connect the petitioners
herein to the crime. In support of the case the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana and the
judgment in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha
v. State of Karnataka is referred.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
FOR THAT the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in its much-celebrated judgment in Chowdhury
Bhajanlal Vs. State of Haryana (1992 AIR 604)
has laid down certain criteria under which the
Hon'ble High Courts may exercise their
inherent powers in order to quash a proceeding
pending before any court of law. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that where the
averments made in the complaint do not make
the offences as alleged or any offence at all, it
would only be just and proper in the interest of
justice to quash such proceedings as the same
amounts to abuse of the process of Court. In
the instant case the facts disclosed in the
complaint do not make out any contravention
of the provisions of Sections 120B/420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
as such no offence under the said Sections can
be said to have been made out. Moreover,
initiation of the proceeding impugned is tinged
with malafide. In such circumstances it would
only be just and proper to quash the impugned
proceedings.
FOR THAT the impugned proceeding is
otherwise bad in law and as such the same is
liable to be quashed forthwith.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
FOR THAT a false and frivolous criminal
proceeding adversely affects the criminal
justice system.
FOR THAT The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
held that where the averments made in the
complaint do not make the offences as alleged
or any offence at all, it would only be just and
proper in the interest of justice to quash such
proceedings as the same amounts to abuse of
the process of Court. In the instant case the
facts disclosed in the complaint do not make
out any contravention of the provisions of
Sections 120B/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and as such no offence under the said Sections
can be said to have been made out. Moreover,
initiation of the proceeding impugned is tinged
with malafide. The above allegations do not
suggest commission of an offence and thus, in
such circumstances it would only be just and
proper to quash the impugned proceedings.
The petitioners refer to the judgment of Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2021 SC 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated the first golden rule of Bhajan
Lal's case.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
FOR THAT the allegations are absurd and
lacking firm ground to investigate the offence.
Allegations in the FIR must be solid and
capable of giving a reason for initiating a
investigation against the accused. CrPC does
not permit launching an investigation upon an
absurd FIR.
FOR THAT the High Court can quash the
criminal proceeding which is carried on in
breach of pre legal requirement. Section 195,
196, 197, 198 & 199 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure put some pre-conditions for
launching a criminal proceeding against the
accused. Breach of such a pre-condition will
nullify the investigation. Thus, such breach will
give a ground to quash that criminal
proceeding.
FOR THAT the present criminal proceeding is
initiated with malafide intention as the
petitioners have been falsely implicated by
manipulation of facts.
FOR THAT the present proceeding is nothing
but a cooked-up story out of the imagination of
the respondent no.2/complainant which in
furtherance defaming the petitioners herein.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
The present petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner herein on the aforementioned
grounds that may be argued at the time of
hearing of the present petition, and the
grounds set out hereinabove are without
prejudice to one another.
The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble
Court to add, alter, amend or substitute any of
the aforementioned grounds, if so advised, at a
later stage.
The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has no
other adequate alternative or efficacious
remedy to redress their grievances for which
the Petitioner has preferred this petition under
Section 482 of Cr PC.
The present petition is made bona fide and in
the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
4. Sri.Swaroop S, learned counsel for the petitioners
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that
the petitioners being the employees of the bank, cannot be
proceeded for the alleged criminal act, as it is the voluntary act
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
of respondent No.2 in re-pledging the gold ornaments for
securing the loan accounts of her parents-in-law.
5. He would further contend that when there was a
re-pledging of the gold ornaments by respondent No.2 on her
volition to secure the loan accounts of her parents-in-law, no
criminality whatsoever could be attributed to the present
petitioners and police filing the charge sheet against these
petitioners, has thus resulted in abuse of process of law and
thus, sought for quashing of the charge sheet qua the
petitioners.
6. Per contra , Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court
Government Pleader and Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, in unison would contend that the material
collected by the Investigation Agency would be sufficient
enough to proceed with the trial and the grounds urged in the
petition are more in the nature of defence to be urged in the
pending trial and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record,
respondent No.2 having lost her husband Jayanth Kumar,
became a widow, is not in dispute. Likewise, the accounts
maintained by respondent No.2 having been cleared, is not in
dispute.
9. As such, the gold ornaments that was pledged as a
security in respect of the accounts of respondent No.2 ought to
have been returned to the bank. In fact, the document placed
on record by the petitioners themselves would show that the
gold ornaments were returned to the custody of respondent
No.2.
10. However, according to respondent No.2, the gold
was not actually returned to respondent No.2 but it was
retained as security for the loan account of her parents-in-law.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
11. It is at that juncture, the respondent No.2 was
shocked and therefore, lodged the complaint stating that in the
guise of closing the loan accounts which were maintained by
respondent No.2, several signatures of respondent No.2 was
obtained and the role of these two petitioners is spelt out and
Investigation Agency has collected such materials which are
necessary to show that these petitioners are part of the
conspiracy with the parents-in-law in alleged re-pledging of the
gold ornaments inasmuch as gold ornaments were not returned
to the hands of respondent No.2 after clearing the dues.
12. Later on, the loan account of parents-in-law of
respondent No.2 became sticky and as such, the bank is now
trying to recover the said amount by selling the gold ornaments
which is said to have been re-pledged as security for the loan
accounts of parents-in-law.
13. These aspects of the matter are serious disputed
questions of fact which cannot be considered by this Court by
holding a mini trial, having regard to the limited scope of writ
jurisdiction.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59028
WP No. 6849 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010154152023
14. As such, desisting from holding mini trial, when the
material on record is analyzed, especially the allegations found
in column No.17 with supportive materials, this Court is
satisfied that the grounds urged in the petition would not merit
consideration for quashing the pending charge sheet qua the
petitioners.
15. Hence, the following:
O R D E R
[I] Petition is dismissed .
[II] However, the observations made by this Court
during the course of this order shall not affect the
defence that is available for the petitioners to be
urged in the pending trial, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CBC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44