HDFC LIMITED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 17174 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. HDFC LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT
RAMON HOUSE, H.T PAREKH MARG, 169
BACKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI - 400 020,
AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT HDFC HOUSE
NO. 51, KASTURBA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED
OFFICER MR. YOGESH N.

2. YOGESH N
S/O LATE L. NAGANNA
AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AT HDFC LIMITED,
NO.51, KASTURBA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
KRISHNARAJA SUB DIVISION,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


MYSORE, KARNATAKA - 570 008.

2.
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI RD,
CHAMARAJAPURA, LAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MEGHA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF THE CR.PC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.03.2021
ANNEXURE-AF FILED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER AND ITS OFFICERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER


1. Heard Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and
Smt.Mugha Sunil, learned counsel appearing for

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

2. Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code with the following prayers:
“ Wherefore, the petitioners humbly pray that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
i. Quash the complaint No.Mainapra/va.ka-
1/sa.a-2/2020-21 dated 20.03.2021
(Annexure-AF) filed by the first respondent
insofar as the petitioner and its officers are
concerned.
ii. Quash FIR in Crime No.24/2021 to the extent
that the petitioner and its officers are
concerned dated 20.03.2021 (Annexure-AG)
iii. Pass any other and further orders including
costs of the petition in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case are as under:

3.1. Officer of respondent No.2 by name
S.K.Bhaskar, lodged a complaint with Vidyaranyapuram

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


Police Station, Krishnaraja Sub-Division, Mysuru city on
20.03.2021 which was registered in Crime No.24/2021 for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and two
other accused persons.

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal
that a notification came to be issued on 20.03.1982
proposed to acquire land in different survey numbers of
Nachanahalli for formation of industrial layout.

3.3. It is further contended that 4 acres 25 guntas
of land in Sy.No.97 was acquired by Mysuru Development
Authority (hereinafter ‘MUDA’ for short) from its owner
namely Seetaram @ Madaiah and portion of the land was
st
not developed in J.P.Nagar, 1 phase as there was a high-
tension electrical line passed through the said portion.
Accused No.1 – Dasabhovi son of Chenna Bhovi resident of
Nachanahalli said to have been granted site bearing No.1

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


with assessment No.119 in Srirampura Group Panchayat
on 10.01.1976.

3.4. Accused No.2 said to have obtained loan of
Rs.55,00,000/- on the strength of the title deeds of said
site bearing No.1 and since accused No.2 – Shivayogi
became defaulter, HDFC Bank proceeded under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) and auctioned the property and
Dr.S.B.M.Prasanna purchased the property in the auction
for a sum of Rs.60,40,000/- and land belonged to MUDA
and not to Dasabhhovi or accused No.2 – Shivayogi and as
such, sought for action.

4. Police after registering the case, are
investigating the matter.

5. Petitioner No.1 is accused No.3 in the complaint
and petitioner No.2 is the employee of petitioner No.1.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021



6. The petitioners have challenged the very
registration of the case, in this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition would contend that
before advancing the loan on the property, legal opinion
was obtained where under tracing of the title has taken
place based on the letter issued by Special Deputy
Commissioner on 20.02.1976 and thereafter site No.1 was
allotted to Dasabhovi.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
further contend that loan was obtained on the strength of
the title deeds which was deposited as security and when
there was a default, HDFC Bank proceeded under the
provisions of SARFAESI Act and auctioned the site which
was purchased by Dr.S.B.M.Prasanna. Therefore, no
criminality can be attributed to the petitioners herein for
having taken action in a bonafide manner by resorting to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


the statutory provisions and thus sought for allowing the
petition.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent No.1 would submit that since there was a
written complaint lodged by the officials of MUDA,
jurisdictional police registered the case for the aforesaid
offences and are investigating the matter and if no case is
made out against the petitioners, suitable report would be
filed and sought for dismissal of the petition.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while
adopting the arguments of learned Additional Government
Advocate would further contend that admittedly after
issuing the gazette notification and acquiring the land, all
rights possessed by the people in the land bearing No.97,
measuring 4 acres 25 guntas, would vest with MUDA.
Therefore, rights if any, possessed by Dasabhovi in respect
of site No.1 which has been given as security for the loan
of HDFC Bank itself is incorrect and illegal and therefore,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


investigation has to continue in respect of the crime which
has been registered by jurisdictional police and sought for
dismissal of the petition.

11. Having heard the arguments of both the
parties, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.

12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
noticed that at an undisputed point of time, site No.1 was
allotted to Dasabhovi by virtue of the letter written by
Special Deputy Commissioner.

13. Whether at all, said Dasabhovi was notified
before acquisition of the land to the tune of 4 acre 25
guntas in Sy.No.97 was notified or not cannot be decided
by this Court, at this stage.

14. Suffice to say that if Dasabhovi was notified and
despite acquisition of the entire land in Sy.No.97
measuring 4 acres 25 guntas of Nachanahalli village was
acquired by MUDA, then very security itself was not

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


available and the action taken by petitioner No.1 in
auctioning the property under the provisions of SARFAESI
Act itself will be held to be incorrect and nonest.

15. Jurisdictional Civil Court is the proper Court to
arrive at such a finding after considering the rival
contentions of the parties.

16. At any rate, since the document that was
placed on record before petitioner No.1 – bank along with
the legal opinion, depicted the title in Dasabhovi and that
property was offered as security and action taken in good
faith in a bonafide manner by resorting to statutory
provisions by petitioner No.1 in auctioning the property of
Dasabhovi, recover the dues of HDFC Bank cannot be
termed as criminal activity so as to attract the alleged
offences insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

17. Petitioner No.2 being the employee of the bank,
he has acted as per the instructions of the higher officials

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


of the bank. Therefore, he cannot also be proceeded with
the intended criminal action.

18. Accordingly, a case is made out to quash the
pending criminal proceedings insofar as petitioners are
concerned.

19. Hence, following:
ORDER
allowed
i. Petition is .

ii. FIR registered in Crime No.24/2021 dated
20.03.2021 by Vidyaranyapuram Police Station,
Krishnaraja Sub-Division, Mysuru for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 468
and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby
quashed insofar as present petitioners are
concerned.

iii. However, quashing of the FIR would not
preclude respondent No.2 – MUDA to work out

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55766
WP No. 17174 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010346402021


the remedy insofar as remaining two accused
persons in the pending criminal case and also
protect its right in respect of the land which
was acquired by notifying Sy.No.97 of the
Nachanahalli village to the extent of 4 acres 25
guntas before the jurisdictional Civil Court in
accordance with law.

Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE


KAV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14