GANAPATHI BHAT vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4634 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

1. GANAPATHI BHAT
S/O MANJUNATH BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. HDFC BANK LTD.,
SAHAKARANAGAR BRANCH,
ST
NO.2504, 1 FLOOR, ‘E’ BLOCK,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
SAHAKARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560092.

2. SHASHI JAGADISHAN
S/O MR. C. JAGADISHAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. HDFC BANK LTD,
BANK HOUSE, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE
DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI
MUMBAI-400018.
…PETITIONERS








Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


(BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560037.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARAPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION,
PARAPANA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU-560100.

3. ARVIND BONANTHAYA BHAT
S/O MR. PRABHAKAR BONANTHAYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
A-103, ADARSH PALM RETREAT TOWER-4,
DEVARABISANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560103.
…RESPONDENTS

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

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLIANT AND FIR
REGISTERED BY THE MARATHAHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU
CITY/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.50/2021 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 34, 418, 420, 468 AND 477A OF IPC, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1
and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The present petition is filed praying this Court to
quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.50/2021 registered

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


by Marathahali Police Station, Bengaluru City against the
petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
418, 420, 468 and 477A read with Section 34 of IPC as per
Annexures-A and B respectively and grant such other relief as
deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The factual matrix of case of complainant-
respondent No.3 while filing PCR No.51183/2021 is that the
while approaching the Marathali Police, also enclosed detailed
affidavit and thereafter, the Trial Court passed an order
referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The same
is challenged before this Court.
3. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners is that while invoking the jurisdiction of
Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint, no affidavit is
filed in support of the complaint. Hence, the counsel brought to
notice of this Court judgment of the Apex Court in PRIYANKA
SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that, in the complaint,
Managing Director of HDFC Bank Limited is also arraigned as

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


accused No.3 and if any transaction, that too, an allegation of
forgery and creation of documents, there cannot be an
allegation against petitioner No.3 and nothing is stated in the
private complaint as against the Managing Director of the Bank
and specific allegations are made against the Branch Manager
as well as accused Nos.1 and 2 and though stated that accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 are guilty of defrauding the complainant by
forging the loan agreement, altering and falsifying the accounts
belonging to the complainant, question of invoking the said
offence in respect of petitioner No.3 does not arise.
4. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
order passed by this Court in CRIMINAL PETITION
NO.3395/2021 dated 26.07.2021 and brought to notice of
this Court paragraph No.8, wherein an observation is made by
this Court that if any acts are contrary to the guidelines of the
RBI, then the complainant has to file a complaint to the RBI
and in turn, the RBI by appointing the officers shall file a
complaint before the Ombudsman as per the Rule 8 of the
Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. As per Section 46A,
admittedly, the Banking Officials are Public Servants and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


Section 47 of the Banking Regulation Act, no Court shall take a
cognizance of any offence punishable under sub-section (5) of
Section 36AA or Section 46, except upon complaint in writing
made by an officer of the Reserve Bank or, as the case may be
the National Bank generally or specially authorized in writing in
this behalf.
5. The Counsel also brought to notice of this Court,
Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 that if any
violation of guidelines of RBI, the grievance is available to the
complainant to approach the RBI Grievances Cell and in turn,
the officer attached to the RBI shall have to file a complaint and
they shall take action on bank officials for violation of the bank
rules. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the
allegations made against the petitioners is that loan was
availed and purchased the car and top-up loan is also not
disputed. When the car was purchased by availing loan and
top-up loan facility is also availed, the only allegation is forgery
and using forged documents and no compliance under Section
154(1) of Cr.P.C. and Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


counsel would contend that this Court has to quash the
proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently
contend that very contention that affidavit is not filed cannot be
accepted and the same is noted in the very order sheet that
while filing the complaint, the complaint even given to the
Commissioner of Police is also enclosed. Apart from that,
detailed affidavit is also filed along with the complaint and the
Trial Court also while referring the matter under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. in detail taken note of allegations made in the
complaint and referred the matter under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. The same is not an order taking cognizance and the
same is only a pre-cognizance order. Hence, the order passed
by this Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3395/2021 will
not come to the aid of the petitioners. In the present case, no
such order taking cognizance is passed and also the grievance
is not violation of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is a case of
allegation of forging documents and making use of forged

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


documents by the officials. Hence, the contention of the
counsel cannot be accepted.
7. The counsel appearing for respondent No.3-
complainant would submit that for having availed the loan and
purchased the Audi car is not in dispute and even, availing of
top-up loan is also not in dispute. But, subsequently, the
documents which have been obtained from the concerned
clearly disclose that the same were sent to FSL and though the
report is not obtained from the competent authority, it is taken
from the private agencies. But, the issue is also with regard to
forging of signature and the same requires to be investigated
by the Investigating Officer by securing documents from the
bank. Hence, question of quashing the proceedings does not
arise.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent
No.3-complainant, there is a force in the contention of learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to arraigning
the Managing Director of HDFC Bank Limited, who is at Mumbai

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


as an accused and there cannot be criminal prosecution against
him. Hence, it requires quashing of proceedings against the
Managing Director, who has been arraigned as accused No.3 in
the complaint. However, when specific allegations are made
against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and complaint is also very
specific that signatures of the complainant is forged and to that
effect also prima facie produced the report as per Ex.R4 and
prima facie, the same discloses that signatures are forged
having received the documents from the bank which have been
received and sent to the agency for securing the opinion. When
such allegations are made and prima facie the same discloses
that there is forgery and manipulation of records, the matter
requires to be investigated.
9. It is also important to note that scope of quashing
of FIR is very limited. The Apex Court also in the judgment in
DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL vs. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 held
that Court has to look into contents of the complaint. If
contents of the complaint does disclose committing of an
offence, the Court should not venture to quash the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


proceedings. When such allegations are made and in the case
on hand also, private complaint was filed supported by an
affidavit and also the Trial Court exercised the power under
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same is only a pre-cognizance order
and not taken any cognizance.
10. When such being the case, even protection given to
the bank officials is also at the time of filing of charge sheet
and if it is in contravention of the Banking Regulation Act and
an offence of criminal act of forgery is committed, such
protection also cannot be given. Hence, considering the factual
aspects, the Investigating Officer has to investigate the matter.
Therefore, in view of the serious allegations made in the
complaint, matter requires to be investigated in respect of
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.C.R.No.51183/2021 are
concerned. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to quash the
proceedings in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who have
been arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the private
complaint. Hence, the petition requires to be allowed in part.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58746
CRL.P No. 4634 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010223042021


ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part . The complaint and
FIR in Crime No.50/2021 registered by Marathahali
Police Station, Bengaluru City against accused No.3
in P.C.R.No.51183/2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 418, 420, 468 and 477A read with
Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
(ii) The petition is dismissed in respect of accused
Nos.1 and 2 in P.C.R.No.51183/2021 are
concerned.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15