A K SURESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.124 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. A.K. SURESH,
S/O P.K.K. PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.333, “ANJANEYAM”,
PARAKKATTU TEMPLE ROAD,
CHEMBUMUKKU, TRIKKAKARA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682021, KERALA.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560045.

2. SRI. CHANDRAKANTH,
S/O LATE M.R.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ND TH
NO.816, 2 CROSS, 5 MAIN,
AGRAHARA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560064.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.10.2026)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
ORDER DATED 16.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-61) IN CRL.RP.NO.943/2017 REJECTING IT AND
THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.10747/2012 REJECTING
HIS PRAYER FOR DISCHARGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
DISCHARGE HIM.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant.

2. An application is filed before the Trial Court by the
petitioner/accused No.5 for discharge, stating that he is not
aware of any conspiracy between accused Nos.1 to 4 and he
had discharged his duty as Manager in sanctioning the loan
based on the opinion obtained from an advocate and the
advocate gave the opinion that the borrower is having a title
over the property and hence, loan was advanced.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the document No.6, opinion given by the advocate, that the
borrower has got a title and hence, loan is sanctioned. The
learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not aware
of any impersonation in obtaining the sale deed. The learned
counsel would submit that the Trial Court committed an error in
observing in paragraph No.17 that accused No.5 without
ascertaining the documents had sanctioned the loan. CW2 to
CW8 in their statements have specifically stated that accused
Nos.5 and 6 have assisted other accused in sanctioning the
loan on the property of complainant. The learned counsel also
contend that even the Revisional Court also did not apply its
judicious mind and particularly in paragraph No.14 it is
observed that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against
accused and it is not a case for discharge of accused, at this
stage and the Court cannot probe into the matter while
considering the discharge application. The reasoning given by
the Revisional Court is erroneous.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant would vehemently contend that loan was

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


sanctioned without verifying the title records and hence, the
petitioner also had indulged in conspiring with accused Nos.1 to
4 in sanctioning the loan. The Trial Court and the Revisional
Court also rightly taken note of the same.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that it is a
matter of trial and the matter has to be considered before the
Trial Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the points that would arise for the
consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
rejecting the discharge application and the
Revisional Court in affirming the said order and
whether it requires interference of this Court?


(ii) What order?

Point No.(i):

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, an allegation is made against this petitioner
that he had indulged in sanctioning the loan. The main

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that legal
opinion was taken in terms of document No.6 before
sanctioning the loan and title was also verified. The description
of the documents are also taken note of that hakkupatra was
issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of Sri
C.Krishnappa and Katha was also issued in his name and
property tax was also paid for the year 2006 issued by
Municipal Council, Yelahanka. Encumbrance Certificate for the
period from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2005 issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Central Registry, Bangalore was also taken note of.
Having taken the opinion from the concerned legal advisor, the
petitioner sanctioned the loan. It is not the case of the
prosecution that this petitioner also indulged in creation of
documents and only invoked the offence under Sections 415
and 420 of IPC and while invoking Sections 415 and 420 of IPC,
though allegation is made that loan was sanctioned without
verification of the document, the Trial Court committed an error
in making such an observation in paragraph No.17. Even the
Revisional Court also did not apply its mind while considering
the ground which has been urged for discharge and there must

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


be ingredients of the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of
IPC and question of cheating does not arise. Though witnesses
CW2 to CW8 in their statements have specifically stated that
accused Nos.5 and 6 have assisted other accused in sanctioning
the loan, but the Court has to take note of the fact that when
the title deeds are produced before the bank and opinion is
taken from the advocate, the Bank Manager being the head of
the bank relied upon the opinion of the legal advisor and
proceeded to sanction the loan. Hence, that cannot be termed
as that he was hand in glow with the other accused persons in
sanctioning the loan. Both the Courts failed to take note of the
said fact into consideration. The Bank Manager proceeded
based on document No.6 i.e., opinion given by the legal advisor
who had examined the title and if any such impersonation as
alleged is against accused Nos.1 to 4 and not against this
petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings or otherwise it
leads to miscarriage of justice and it is nothing but an abuse of
process implicating the Bank Manager as accused No.5. Hence,
I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60529
CRL.P No. 124 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010564222019


Point No.(ii):
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.


(ii) The order of the Trial Court dated 02.12.2017
passed in C.C.No.10747/2012 in rejecting the
discharge application is set aside.


(iii) The order of the Revisional Court dated
16.11.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.943/2017 is
also set aside.


(iv) Consequent upon setting aside both the orders,
the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20