MRS RAMYA DEVI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021




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.1628 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. MRS. RAMYA DEVI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O MR.CHANDRA MOHAN B.S.,
TH
R/AT NO.33, 7 MAIN ROAD,
SHARADA COLONY,
BASAWESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 064.

2. DR. CHANDRA MOHAN B.S.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O MR. SIDDAIAH,
R/AT FLAT NO.D1104,
SRIRAM SUHANA APARTMENTS,
SURAYAVAMSHI APARTMNTS,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 054.

3. MR. SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR. THIMME GOWDA,
TH
R/AT O.33, 7 MAIN ROAD,
SHARADA COLONY,
BASAWESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 064.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P., ADVOCATE)









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KARNATAKA-560001.

2. MR. R. JAGADISH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O RANGAPPA M.,
ST
R/AT NO.120, 1 FLOOR,
NEAR CENTRAL BANK ATM,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 096.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET BEARING
NO.148/2020 ONLY WITH REGARD TO ACCUSED NO.7 TO 9 i.e
PETITIONERS FILED BEFORE HONBLE VII A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU WHICH IS REGISTERED IN CASE BEARING
C.C.NO.12820/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 415, 420, 468, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC,
PENDING BEFORE LEARNED VII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.

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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021



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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State.

2. This petition is filed by accused Nos.7 to 9 praying
this Court to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.12820/2020 for
the offence punishable under Sections 415, 420, 468, 471 read
with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that PCR No.13862/2019 was
filed before the Trial Court making an allegation against these
petitioners and other accused persons and only verifying
affidavit was filed along with the complaint. The learned Senior
Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC
287 and contend that the Apex Court has clearly held in this
judgment regarding non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and
154(3) of Cr.P.C. while referring the matter under Section

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


156(3) of Cr.P.C. In order to prevent the frivolous litigation, the
complaint should be accompanied by an affidavit and the same
is not found.

4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DIPAKBHAI
JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND
ANOTHER reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547, wherein the Apex
Court has made an observation that all the co-accused
absconding and the appellant alone being proceed against – no
material on basis of which even a strong suspicion could be
aroused against the appellant and held that in the
circumstances, the Trial Court erred in not discharging the
appellant and the High Court erred in not quashing such
proceedings.

5. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHIV KUMAR v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 746, wherein the Apex Court taken note of that
in order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 of IPC, the
prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the
accused had possession of the property before the accused got
possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that
the property was stolen property.

6. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the
judgment passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.515/2023 dated
25.04.2026, wherein the petition was allowed and quashed the
proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned
counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of KARAN TALWAR v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
passed SLP (Crl.) No.10736/2022 so also the judgment of this
Court passed in Crl.P.No.103102/2023 dated 20.08.2024,
wherein also in respect of accused No.2 is concerned, exercised
the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the voluntary
statement of accused was recorded wherein disclosure was
made.

7. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that the accusation made in the
complaint and also in the charge-sheet is that there was an
agreement and payment was made prior to the agreement to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and
also an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid in different account
and though payment was made in favour of petitioner
No.3/accused No.9 subsequent to the agreement, but none of
the witnesses who have been examined by the Investigating
Officer stated anything about the involvement of petitioner
No.3. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court the voluntary statement of accused No.3 that there was a
payment in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and that itself is
not enough to invoke the ingredients of the offence under
Section 420 of IPC. Insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned,
when there is no any material collected by the Investigating
Officer as against petitioner No.3, except relying upon the bank
statement for having made the payment, the same cannot be a
ground to invoke Sections 415 and 420 of IPC and hence, it is a
fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or
otherwise it amounts to abuse of process which leads to
miscarriage of justice.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for
respondent No.1/State would vehemently contend that other

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


accused made the voluntary statement that out of the amount
which was paid by CW1, the amount was paid in favour of
these petitioners. This Court having heard the matter had
directed to clarify whether that amount was paid subsequent to
the agreement or prior to the agreement and the learned
Additional SPP fairly submits that payment was made prior to
the agreement in 2016 and 2018, but insofar as petitioner No.3
is concerned, relying upon the bank statement would submit
that payment of Rs.50,000/- each was made subsequent to the
agreement and hence, there cannot be any quashing of
proceedings against petitioner No.3/accused No.9.

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional SPP appearing for
respondent No.1/State, the Court has to take note of that a
private complaint was filed in PCR No.13862/2019. Having
perused this complaint, no doubt, an allegation is made that
payments are made, but in support of this application, as
rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, no affidavit is filed except the verifying affidavit.
The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


Srivastava (supra) is very clear that while initiating the
criminal prosecution, along with the application under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and private complaint, there must be an
affidavit. The same is with an object to prevent the frivolous
litigation. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to
compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. However,
in the case on hand, the matter was referred under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the police have also investigated the
matter and the Investigating Officer also collected the material.
The accused No.3 made the voluntary statement that in 2016
payment was made to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and in the
year 2018 when the amount was borrowed by him from the
complainant to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-, out of that an
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid. But this is also prior to
the agreement and none of the witnesses speak about the role
of accused No.9 having received the amount, except relying
upon by the bank statement. Even if any payment is made by
the complainant to CW1 and if such amount is paid to these
petitioners, the same will not attract the ingredients of the
offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC and in order to

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60527
CRL.P No. 1628 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010080592021


invoke Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, there must be a material
and while invoking Section 420 of IPC it is also settled law that
at the inception of the transaction there must be an intention to
defraud the complainant and the same is not found. Under the
circumstances, it is a fit case to exercise the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise it amounts to miscarriage of
justice and an abuse of process.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed and the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners herein i.e., accused
Nos.7 to 9 in C.C.No.12820/2020, is hereby
quashed.



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15