MS. VEDASHREE R vs STATE BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2630 OF 2024


IN CRL.P No. 2397/2024

BETWEEN:

1. MS. VEDASHREE R
D/O B.S. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

2. MRS .P. SUNITHA
W/O B.S. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.22, G.B. LANE,
D
2N CROSS, COTTONPET,
BENGALURU - 560 053
C/O SIDDENAHALLI
HESARAGATTA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-73
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KARIGOWDA HENCHINAMANE S AND
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR B.M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



BENGALURU - 560 001

2. AJIT A DESHMUKH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O ANANDA D DESHMUKH
CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA,
NO.26, MAHADIMANE, I BLOCK,
BESIDE NALAPAKA HOTEL
RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU - 560 010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. B.S JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLIANT DATED 06.07.2023 (ANNEXURE B)
AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO124/2023 DATED 07.07.2023
REGISTERED BY SUBRAMANYA NAGAR POLICE STATION
(ANNEXURE A) REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/U/S.120-B,406,420,465,468,471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

IN CRL.P NO. 2630/2024

BETWEEN:

1. MS VEDASHREE R
D/O B.S. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

2. MRS. P SUNITHA
W/O B.S. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, G.B LANE
ND
2 CROSS, COTTONPET
BENGALURU-560 053
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



SRI. MOHAN KUMAR B.M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY EARLIER KALASIPLAYA POLICE
NOW CCB-OCW POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001

2. MR. RAMDAS P
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SUBBARAO
ASSISTANT MANAGER
KARNATAKA BANK R.V ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY-560 004

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. AMRUTHESH C, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2020 (ANNEXURE-B)
AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.105/2020 DATED
13.10.2020 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS AND SUBSEQUENT FILING OF CHARGE
SHEET IN C.C.NO.35983/2022, P/U/S 120B, 420 R/W 34,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE COURT OF THE VIII
ACMM AT BENGALURU (TRIAL COURT) AGAINST THE
ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 / PETITIONERS.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1
and 2 in C.C.No.35983/2022 (arising out of Crime No.105/2020
registered by Kalasipalya Police Station), for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B and 420 read with section 34
of IPC, presently pending on the file of I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned
Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2-complainant, who was working as the Assistant Branch
Manager of Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch, lodged a
complaint on 13.10.2020 alleging that, accused No.1-
Vedashree approached the said bank seeking a housing loan for
purchase of an apartment bearing Flat No.300, Keerthana
Enclave, Building Site No.19, situated at Hennur Village,
Donnenahalli Layout, Bengaluru North, measuring 1,100 square
feet along with car parking. Her mother, accused No.2-Sunitha
P., stood as guarantor for the said loan. After verification of the
documents pertaining to the property, the bank sanctioned a

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



loan of Rs.38,00,000/- on 21.01.2019 and transferred the said
amount to the account of the vendor, namely, Varalakshmi.
The property was also mortgaged in favour of the bank on the
same day.
3. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 was
required to repay the loan in 240 monthly instalments of
Rs.38,088/- each, but paid only a sum of Rs.2,15,176/-
towards the loan on different dates. It is also alleged that the
address furnished by the accused No.1 at the time of availing
the loan was that of her mother's residence and her present
whereabouts are not known. Further, Manjunath G and Chetan
G, the children of the aforesaid Smt. Varalakshmi, had signed
the sale deed as witnesses. Hence, alleging that the accused
No.1, her guarantor, the owner of the property and the said
witnesses had committed fraud in obtaining the housing loan,
the complaint came to be lodged by the respondent No.2
against them.

4. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to
be registered in Crime No.105/2020 for the offence punishable
under section 420 of IPC. Subsequently, respondent No.1-

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the
petitioners and others for the offences punishable under section
120B, 420 read with section 34 of IPC, by arraying the
petitioners as accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
5. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and the learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
6. The primary contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No.2 is the mother
of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1, being a teacher, was
introduced to accused Nos.3 to 6 in connection with the
purchase of two flats, namely, Flat No.C-100 and Flat No.300,
situated on the second floor of Keerthana Enclave, which were
constructed by accused Nos.3 to 6. It is contended that, in
respect of registration of the said flats in favour of the
petitioners, accused Nos.3 to 6 represented that a housing loan
could be obtained from Karnataka Bank for purchase of Flat
No.300. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted an application

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



and a loan of Rs.38,00,000/- was sanctioned, which amount
was paid to accused Nos.3 to 6, apart from a down payment of
Rs.13,48,000/-, towards the total sale consideration of
Rs.52,00,000/-. Thereafter, the sale deed came to be executed
on 21.01.2019.
7. It is further contended that, after the expiry of the
12-month holiday period for repayment of the EMI, petitioner
No.2 paid a sum of Rs.2,92,264/- towards EMI from
21.01.2020 to 22.10.2020. Subsequently, the petitioners came
to know that accused Nos.3 to 6, who are family members, had
committed fraud by obtaining loans from different banks in
respect of the same flats. In that regard, the petitioners
attempted to lodge a complaint before the Police; however, the
same was not received. On the contrary, based on the
complaint lodged by the Bank, an FIR came to be registered
against the petitioners in respect of the two flats, and the Police
have also filed the charge sheet in the present case for the
offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B read with
Section 34 of the IPC.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



8. Learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the
accusation column of the charge sheet, contended that the
entire allegations are directed against accused Nos.3 to 6 and
that it is specifically alleged that accused Nos.3 to 6, being
family members, colluded with each other with an intention to
derive unlawful gain and duped the petitioners without their
knowledge. It is therefore contended that the petitioners are
bona fide purchasers who have invested their hard-earned
money to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/- and, despite being victims
of the alleged fraud, have been implicated in the criminal case.
Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel seeks to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Bank contended that the petitioners, without verifying the
existence of Flat Nos.C-100 and 300, purchased the said flats
and availed a loan from respondent No.2-Bank in respect of
Flat No.300 and from Bank of India in respect of Flat No.C-100.
According to him, the said flats do not, in fact, exist and the
owners/vendors, namely accused Nos.3 to 6, in collusion with
the petitioners, defrauded the Banks by obtaining loans and
thereafter failed to repay the same. In such circumstances, it is

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



contended that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 120-B of
the IPC are prima facie attracted against the petitioners.
Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition.
10. Learned HCGP also opposed the petition contending
that the charge sheet has already been filed and the
statements of the material witnesses are required to be tested
in a full-fledged trial. Hence, learned HCGP sought dismissal of
the petition.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire documents on record.
12. As could be gathered from the complaint and
charge sheet averments, petitioner No.2, being a teacher,
purchased Flat No.300 in Keerthana Enclave Apartment from
accused No.3 by availing a housing loan of Rs.38,00,000/- from
respondent No.2-Bank. The total sale consideration was
Rs.52,00,000/-. The loan was sanctioned on the date of
execution of the sale deed and the sanctioned amount was
disbursed to the account of the petitioners, which, in turn, was

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



transferred to the account of accused No.3. A mortgage deed
was also executed in favour of the Bank on the same day. The
petitioners paid Rs.13,48,000/- towards the down payment and
thereafter paid EMIs amounting to Rs.2,92,264/- from January
2020 to October 2020. Subsequently, they failed to repay the
loan, resulting in the account being classified as NPA.
13. Thereafter, the Bank initiated SARFAESI
proceedings, during which it came to its knowledge that Flat
No.300 did not exist and that Flat Nos.C-100 and 300 were, in
fact, one and the same. The charge sheet averments disclose
that accused Nos.3 to 6, being family members and the
owners/vendors of the property, had allegedly colluded with
each other and defrauded the petitioners and other purchasers
by assigning different flat numbers to the flats in the under-
construction apartment and obtaining loans from different
Banks.
14. The complaint averments further disclose that the
Bank sanctioned the loan to the petitioners after verifying the
title and other relevant documents. In such circumstances, it
cannot be presumed that the Bank would have sanctioned a

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



loan of Rs.38,00,000/- without verifying the existence of the
property and the title documents. Further, the conduct of the
petitioners in paying the down payment of Rs.13,48,000/- and
subsequently making payment towards the EMIs also indicates
their bona fides. Had the petitioners intended to cheat the
Bank, there was no reason for them to make such payments
towards the loan.
15. On careful scrutiny of the entire charge sheet
material, the principal allegation against the petitioners is that
they obtained the loan in their names by mortgaging the sale
deed and thereafter transferred the loan amount to the account
of accused Nos.3 to 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners has contended that accused Nos.3 to 6 had
arranged the loan by representing that they were acquainted
with the Bank officials and had sold flats in the same apartment
to several persons during its construction by assigning different
flat numbers and obtaining loans from different Banks. In such
circumstances, the petitioners, being bona fide purchasers,
have not only suffered financial loss but have also been
implicated in the present criminal proceedings.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



16. Moreover, on a careful perusal of the charge sheet
material, except for certain bald and omnibus allegations, there
are no specific allegations or material to show that the
petitioners had knowledge of the alleged fraud or had conspired
with accused Nos.3 to 6 with an intention to cheat the Bank.
Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC
are not prima facie attracted against the petitioners.
17. It is by now well settled that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a
frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This
would tarnish the image of the person against whom false,
frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 , held that whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution to get the FIR or
criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



in such circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not. On the other hand, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstance emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into a count
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration
of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly,

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60805
CRL.P No. 2397 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2630 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010143432024



the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER

i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The proceedings against the petitioners -
accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.35983/2022
(arising out of Crime No.105/2020 registered
by Kalasipalya Police Station), for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B and
420 read with section 34 of IPC, presently
pending on the file of I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, is
hereby quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE






PKS/K
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10