SRI SIDDESH G M vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11538 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI SIDDESH G M
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O. MAHADEVA SWAMY
RESIDING AT NO. 113,
4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS
JANANI PALMWOOD SARDAR
VALLAB BHAI PATEL NAGAR,
MYSORE-570028
PERMANENTLY RESIDES AT GOOLIPURA VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA.,ADVOCATE)









AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PSI,
MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE.

2. A. S. GURUSHANKAR
S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OKKALIGA,
BABU AGRO SERVICE CENTER, C-3,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, M.C. ROAD,
MANDYA - 571402.
…RESPONDENTS


Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026


(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1,
SRI GOUTHAM M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A.
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.05.2026 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1
(ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.79/2026 registered before the Mandya East Police Station
for the alleged offences punishable under Section 316(2),
318(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
('BNS').

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is the dealer in connection with the
business run by the respondent no.2. The petitioner had
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026


agreed to carry out certain business transactions for and on
behalf of the respondent no.2. The respondent No.2 used to
supply certain agricultural equipments and the petitioner was
required to coordinate with the sub-dealers. The sub-dealers
used to sell the products to the farmers. The farmers used to
make payment to the sub-dealers and sub-dealers used to
make payment to the second respondent. The petitioner was
required to coordinate between the second respondent and the
sub-dealers.

4. It is urged that the complaint is filed on 23.05.2026
alleging that huge amount of Rs.4,00,000,00/- is
misappropriated by the petitioner. Referring to the contents of
the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that, even as per the contents of the complaint, the
complainant came to know about the alleged misappropriation
on 18.09.2024 and the complaint is lodged almost one and half
years subsequent to the knowledge.

5. It is the further submission that, so far no civil case
is filed and the remedy for the complainant is to file a civil suit
in case there is any default on the part of the petitioner to
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026


repay the amount either to the complainant or to the sub-
dealers.

6. It is also the submission that none of the sub-
dealers has filed any complaint against the petitioner or has
initiated any action for recovery. That being the position, this
case is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court, is
the submission.

7. Learned counsel for the second respondent would
submit that the petitioner was appointed as a dealer to
coordinate between the sub-dealers and the complainant and
the sub-dealers were required to sell the product to the farmers
and the amount was credited to the complainant's account by
the sub-dealers after collecting money from the farmers.

8. It is the further submission that, the Government
has paid subsidy to the complainant in respect of the products
purchased by the farmers and said amount is fraudulently
transferred by the petitioner by misusing the OTP sent to the
complainant's cell phone and the money which is sent to the
petitioner's account is fraudulently credited to the personal
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026


account of the petitioner and the petitioner has misappropriated
the same.

9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel
for the second respondent that 18.09.2022 is not the date on
which the complainant came to know about the alleged fraud.
The incident came to knowledge of the complainant only in the
year 2025.

10. It is further submitted that only after the cheques
issued by the petitioner were dishonoured, the complainant
realised that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount.

11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.

12. From the contents of the complaint, it is noticed
that there is an allegation that the amount from the account of
the petitioner is transferred to the savings bank account as well
as current account of the petitioner. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that both are the
current accounts and not the savings bank account, the Court is
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026


of the view that since there is an allegation of misappropriation
of funds, the same has to be investigated.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner claims that he was
working as a dealer under the respondent no.2 and even
according to the petitioner there was an understanding that
certain amount for the purpose of business has to be
transferred from the account of the respondent no.2 to the
account of the petitioner. If the amount is validly transferred
by the respondent No.2 to the account of the petitioner, then
the next question is whether the amount has been applied as
per the instructions. If it is not validly appropriated, then it
may amount to misappropriation.

14. If the amount is validly transferred from the
account of the petitioner and if the same is appropriated as
advised by the complainant/respondent No.2, then it may not
be a case of misappropriation. Thus, to ascertain the true
nature of the transaction, the matter requires to be
investigated by the police.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56808
CRL.P No. 11538 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010521482026



15. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the
view that the petition cannot be allowed to quash the
complaint. There has to be an appropriate investigation.

16. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that there is a delay of almost one and half years in
lodging the complaint, what is required to be noticed is in the
complaint, it is not stated that the complainant came to know
about the alleged misappropriation on 18.09.2024. Hence, the
petition cannot be allowed on the ground of alleged delay.
dismissed
17. Hence, the petition is .

18. It is made clear that observations made in this
order are not the opinion on the merits of the complaint and
the observations made in this order are only confined to the
merits of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

19. All contentions are kept open.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE


(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24