Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR After Husband Alleges Wife Helped Open Partnership’s ICICI Account Without His Consent

In brief

The question

1. Whether the complaint and FIR should be quashed when the allegations concern opening a partnership bank account using allegedly created documents without the complainant’s consent.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash the complaint and FIR, leaving the allegations to be investigated.

It also directed

It reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek revival of the anticipatory-bail applications, which had not been decided on their merits, and extended the earlier interim stay for two weeks from the date of the order.

The Court clarified that its observations were not findings on the merits and that all contentions remained open.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No. 356/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The complaint alleged that a new ICICI Bank account had been opened in the name of a partnership firm without the complainant’s knowledge or consent, using allegedly created or false documents. The complainant asserted that the partnership deed authorised him, as Managing Partner, to operate the firm’s bank account.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–9

The petitioner contended that the dispute arose from a matrimonial and partnership dispute, that the account had been opened with the complainant’s consent, and that funds had been transferred to him.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–6

The matter came before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the complaint and FIR should be quashed when the allegations concern opening a partnership bank account using allegedly created documents without the complainant’s consent.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 11–14

ii.2. Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in the partnership deed makes the criminal proceedings untenable.

p. 7 · ¶ 15–16

03Law Applied

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to address the request to quash the FIR.

p. 2

It applied the principle in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, that, when considering a quashing request, the court asks whether the FIR allegations disclose a cognizable offence; it does not determine the merits of those allegations, which are for investigation.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 13–14

The Court also stated that an arbitration clause does not, by itself, preclude criminal proceedings where the alleged conduct may attract both civil and criminal consequences.

p. 7 · ¶ 15–16

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318 Section 351 Section 352 Section 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The allegations that a firm account was opened without the complainant’s knowledge or consent, on the basis of allegedly created documents and through a possible conspiracy, required investigation to determine whether the partners had authorised the account and who was authorised to operate it.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 11–14

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to assess the truth or merits of the competing accounts at the quashing stage. It also rejected the proposition that the arbitration clause alone rendered the criminal case untenable, since the alleged acts could have both civil and criminal consequences.

p. 7 · ¶ 15–17