SRI VIGNESH SHISHIR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8620 OF 2019


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. VIGNESH SHISHIR
S/O SRI SATISH KASHYAP
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

2. SMT. ANITHA
W/O SATISH KASHYAP
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

BOTH THE RESIDENTS OF
R/AT NO.190, 19TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV.,ADVOCATE)









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT,
CID, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE,
PALACE ROAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE
CHITRADURGA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU - 577 598.

3. K. GOPAL REDDY
S/O UNKNOWN
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
RESIDING AT DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA – 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. N. RAMACHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASHING THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS IN
SPL.(P.C) NO.2/2019 IN CR.NO.166/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA, THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409,420,120B R/W 37
OF IPC AND SECTION 9,13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and counsel
appearing to the respondents.

2. The prayer is sought for quashing of the
proceedings initiated against the present petitioners who have
been arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 6 in Crime No. 166 of
2016 in Special (P.C) No. 02 of 2019 for the offence punishable
under Section 409, 420, 120(B) read with Section 37 of IPC
and Section 9, 13(1)(C)(D) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution, is that
there are allegation against these two petitioners, in the charge
sheet, that accused Nos.5 and 6 are the children of accused
No.1. Accused No.5 is the son and Accused No.6 is the wife of
Accused No.1 and all of them transpired each other and started
the firm for the name sake and opened the accounts in Bank of
India, Indian Overseas Bank and the amount was transferred
from Accused No.2 to the accused Nos.5 and 6 and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


misappropriated the said amount and documents collected
clearly discloses that there is a clear case of misappropriation.
Hence offences invoked against Accused Nos.2 to 7 under
Sections 420 and 120(B) read with Section 37 of IPC and
against Accused No.1 and also additional charge under Section
409 and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that registration of the case against these
two petitioners is erroneous and these two petitioners have not
involved in any such transaction and accused No.1 was
appointed as the Additional Registrar and Liquidator of
Vanivillas Co-operative Sugar Factory, Hiriyur, Chithradurga
malafide
District. An allegation that accused No.1 with a
intention has misappropriated the funds of the factory to the
extent of Rs.3,00,00,000/- thereby committing criminal breach
of trust. The matter was also investigated by the CID by
Government Order dated 16.03.2017 and having completed the
investigation filed the charge sheet and amount was also
transferred in the name of these two petitioners i.e. accused

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


Nos. 5 and 6 and hence on completion of the investigation only
accused Nos. 5 and 6 have been arrayed.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that when these two petitioners are not
involved in the crime and trial Court also committed an error in
taking cognizance against these two petitioners and ought to
have considered the material on record and without considering
the said material and without application of mind cognizance
was taken and hence it requires interference of this Court. The
counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that accused
No.6 already divorced from accused No.1 in the year 2009 and
in spite of it erroneously implicated the accused No.6 in the
case. The counsel also contend that offence under Section 420
will not attract unless ingredients are of Section 415 enshrined
in the Act is complied with. Hence there cannot be any
proceedings against these two petitions.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that when the investigation was conducted
by the Investigation Officer, found the involvement of these

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


petitioners. The crores of rupees was misappropriated by the
accused No.1 and amount belongs to the accused No. 2 was
transferred in the name of these two accused Nos. 5 and 6 and
they are none other than the son and wife. The material was
also collected at the time of filing the charge sheet only they
have been arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 6. The Trial Court
taken note of the charge sheet material and applied its
judicious mind and having perused the charge sheet and
documents only taken the cognizance and cannot find fault with
the taking of cognizance.

7. Having heard the counsel appearing to the
petitioners and also the counsel appearing to the respondents
and specific allegations made in the charge sheet also that
amount was transferred in the name of accused Nos. 5 and 6
i.e. petitioners herein and they being the son and wife of
accused No.1 and accused No.1 also indulge in such act even
sections under Prevention of Corruption Act was also invoked
against him. Though PC Act offences not attracts against these
two petitioners but other offences attracts and petitioners have
not denied about the transfer of amount in their favour but

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59291
CRL.P No. 8620 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010540122019


material collected by the Investigation Officer is very clear that
amounts are transferred in the name of these accused Nos. 5
and 6. When such material is collected, there cannot be any
quashing of proceedings against these petitioners. The trial
Court also taken note of charge sheet materials, passed an
order and applied judicious mind by passing such an order.
When such order was passed, there cannot be any interference
by this Court and it is a matter of trial with regard to whether
they have involved or not in view of material available, having
transferred the money in favour of accused Nos. 5 and 6 i.e.
petitioners herein.
8. In view of discussions made hereinabove, I pass
the following;
ORDER
Petition is dismissed .

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


RU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29