SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7964 OF 2020

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7877 OF 2020

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7927 OF 2020


IN CRL.P NO.7964/2020


BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SIR DAMODHAR HEMMANNA
R/AT 3-12B
M/S GAJANANA AGRO FOOD INDUSTRIES
REGISTERED OFFICE 3-121-B
DAMODHAR HEMMANNA INDUSTRIES
UDUPI-576101

2. SMT. ASHAKIRAN RAGHAVENDRA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR
R/AT 3-128
GAJANANA CASHEW INDUSTRIES
BDH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 229

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)





Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHANKARANARAYANA POLICE STATION
KUNDAPURA CIRCLE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-01

2. SRINIVASA SHENOY
S/O MOHAN SHENOY
AGE 42
BRANCH MANAGER
KARNATAKA BANK
SIDDAPURA BRANCH
UDUPI-576101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PRASHANTH P N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.94/2020 OF SHANKARANARANAYA
POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,
465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

IN CRL.P NO.7877/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SIR DAMODHAR HEMMANNA
R/AT 3-12B, GAJANANA CASHEW
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 229

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


2. SMT. ASHAKIRAN RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR
R/AT 3-128, GAJANANA CASHEW
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 229

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHANKARANARAYANA POLICE STATION
KUNDAPURA CIRCLE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-01

2.
SRINIVASA SHENOY
S/O MOHAN SHENOY
AGE 42
BRANCH MANAGER
KARNATAKA BANK
SIDDAPURA BRANCH
UDUPI-576101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PRASHANTH P N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.91/2020 OF SHANKARANARANAYA
POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,
465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


IN CRL.P NO.7927/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SIR DAMODHAR HEMMANNA
M/S GAJANANA AGRO FOOD INDUSTRIES
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3-121B
DAMODHAR HEMMANNA INDUSTRIES
UDUPI -576 229

2. SMT. ASHAKIRAN RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA HEMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR
R/AT 3-121B
GAJANANA CASHEW INDUSTRIES
BDH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SIDDAPURA
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576229
UDUPI DISTRICT

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHANKARANARAYANA POLICE STATION
KUNDAPURA CIRCLE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-01

2. SRINIVASA SHENOY
S/O MOHAN SHENOY
AGE 42 YEAR
BRANCH MANAGER
KARNATAKA BANK

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


SIDDAPURA BRANCH
UDUPI-576101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PRASHANTH P N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.93/2020 OF SHANKARANARANAYA
POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,
465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER
The Crl.P.No.7964/2020 is filed praying this Court to
quash the FIR filed in Cr.No.94/2020 against the petitioners
herein by the Shankaranaranaya Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
Sections 34 of IPC.
2. The Crl.P.No.7877/2020 is filed praying this Court
to quash the FIR filed in Cr.No.91/2020 against the petitioners
herein by the Shankaranaranaya Police Station for the offences

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
Sections 34 of IPC.
3. The Crl.P.No.7927/2020 is filed praying this Court
to quash the FIR filed in Cr.No.93/2020 against the petitioners
herein by the Shankaranaranaya Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
Sections 34 of IPC.
4. These are the cases registered based on the
respective complaints and the petitioners are also one and the
same in all the petitions wherein specific accusations are made
invoking the offences 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34
of IPC. When the FIRs are registered against the petitioners,
these petitioners have approached this Court for seeking of
quashing of the FIRs.
5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners that no dispute that the loan was availed by
these petitioners. But allegations made in the respective
complaints in the year 2020 that they have created the false
audit report and based on the report given by the petitioners,
availed the loan that too a huge amount of crores of rupees and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


made the wrong statement. The specific audit report is not
consonance with each other and each report is contradictory to
each other and only with an intention to get the loan,
fraudulently created those documents with an intention to
cheat the bank and did not repay the amount. Hence,
cognizable offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read
with Section 34 of IPC are invoked in all the petitions.
6. The counsel for the petitioners mainly contend that
it is a civil dispute with regard to the non payment of the
amount is concerned. Only with an oblique motive, the present
complaints are filed before the police. The counsel also brought
to notice of this court that respective NCRs are issued when the
complaint was filed and when the NCRs were issued, question
of entertaining the very same complaint and registering the
case for cognizable offences is an abuse of process which leads
to miscarriage of justice. The counsel also submits that when
the proceedings also initiated under the SARFAESI Act and
matters are pending before the Tribunal, there cannot be any
criminal prosecution. The counsel also submits that in the DRT
proceedings also counter claim is also made by the petitioners.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


When such been the case, if it is continued to investigate the
matter, it amounts to an abuse of process.
7. The counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/complainant in his arguments brought to notice of this
court statement of objections filed in all the cases and relies
upon the documents of ‘R’ series which clearly demonstrate
that the petitioners have indulged in fraudulent act like they
have indulged in creating of document and making use of those
documents, availed the loan in crores of rupees. The counsel
would contend that it is a matter of probe and there cannot be
any quashing of the FIRs.
8. The counsel for the petitioners in reply to this
arguments would vehemently contend that even amount was
released in the month of March 2019 as well as in the month of
December, 2019 also relying upon the document before the
court.
9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant and State, no dispute that the credit

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


sanction intimation was also given and amount was released
prior to 2020. But specific complaints were given in 2020
wherein specific accusations are made that with an intention to
defraud the bank, indulged in creation of document. The
offences invoked also under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
No doubt, counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to
notice of this Court, the NCRs are issued in respect of the
complaints. Thus, in respect of the very same complaints, there
cannot be any FIsR. The said submission cannot be accepted
for the reason that when the cognizable offences are invoked
against the petitioners, the IO has no any other option, in view
of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of LALITA
KUMARI vs GOVT. OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (2013)
14 SCR 713 , wherein the Apex Court categorically held that
when the complaint does disclose the cognizable offence, it is
mandatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to register
the case and investigate the matter.
10. In respect of the other contention that amounts are
also released in the year 2019. But the complaint is filed in
2020 in respect of the specific accusation made in the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


complaint for having availed the term loan as well as OD
facilities by the petitioner, that too when specific allegations are
made that they have indulged in creation of two audit reports
and based on the said two audit reports, given false information
and indulged in taking of crores of rupees by the petitioners.
When such allegations are made and the complaint discloses
committing of cognizable offences, the IO has no other option
in registering the case. The Apex Court in the judgment of
DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL vs. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104,
categorically held that the High Court should not venture to
quash the proceedings, that too by a quashing of FIR and the
matter has to be unearth by the Investigating Officer in
paragraphs 30 and 31 and also held with regard to the scope of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in paragraph 25. When such being the
case and when specific accusation is made against the
petitioners, matter has to be probed and truth has to be
unearth by IO and it is the domain of the IO to investigate the
matter and file either a ‘A’ report or ‘B’ report after the
investigation. When such being the case, I do not find any force

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58379
CRL.P No. 7964 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 7877 of 2020
CRL.P No. 7927 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010401302020


in the contention of the petitioners counsel that the petitioners
have made out the ground to quash the FIRs.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE




SN