Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Puneeth H.R., S/o. Late Rangaswamy H.S. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Its Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, Rep. By Special Public Prosecutor For Lokayukta, Bengaluru and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3429 of 2023
Decided On : 27-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty H., Advocate
For the Respondents:Smt. Rashmi Patel, HCGP, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Smt. Vinithra Srinivasan, Advocate And Sri. Varun Srinivasan, Advocate.

Involvement of an accused may be established during investigation, justifying inclusion in the charge sheet even if initially not named in the FIR, especially in serious economic offenses.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(2) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of misappropriation of funds by bank employees and conspirators, including the petitioner for transactions totaling around Rs.3.80 Crores - Petition dismissed as prima facie case against the petitioner established based on investigation findings, financial transactions, and relationships between accused. (Paras 10, 25, 29, and 30)

(B) Criminal liability - The court emphasized that an accused person can be included in a charge sheet following their identification during investigation, even if initially not named in the FIR, as per established legal principles regarding supplementary accusations. (Paras 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an account holder of a bank, was implicated in a scheme of fraudulent transactions led by bank employees resulting in significant monetary misappropriations. Allegations included unauthorized bank transactions amounting to Rs.3.80 Crores transferred to the petitioner's accounts, which were purportedly used for personal luxuries.

Findings of Court:
The investigation revealed sufficient connections between the petitioner and fraudulent activities, underscoring the fraudulent usage of misappropriated funds.

Issues: The key questions were whether there exists sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged fraud and whether the FIR and charge sheet should be quashed on the grounds of lack of prima facie case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s subsequent involvement in the crime, revealed through investigation, justifies the continuation of proceedings. It reaffirmed that inquiries into economic offenses merit rigorous judicial scrutiny and cannot be dismissed lightly.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of fraudulent transactions and misappropriation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. defense arguments regarding petitioner’s innocence and legal sufficiency (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. prosecution's case against the petitioner supported by evidence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. court's evaluation of evidence and conclusion on prima-facie case (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. order dismissing the petition (Para 31)

ORDER :

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.)

This petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.1/2023 registered at Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. By way of amendment application, petitioner has sought to quash the charge sheet filed in Spl.CC.No.1008/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 403 , 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 of IPC , Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘I.T. Act’) and Section 13 (1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , (for short ‘PC Act’).

3. Brief facts: One Pramod Kumar Y.S., working as Assistant General Manager and Branch Head of IDBI Bank Ltd., lodged a complaint alleging misappropriation of funds by Smt. Sajila Gurumurthy (accused No.1) Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., based on which the aforementioned FIR was registered against the said accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 and 420 of IPC .

4. It is alleged in the complaint that at the instance of Smt. Sajila Gurumurthy, who was earlier posted as Relationship Manager with Gandhinagar Branch, Bengaluru, certain unauthorized transfer of funds have taken place from the accounts of certain customers from 23.03.2022 to 26.12.2022. Further, some of the customers' accounts were debited for various amounts without their mandate and the fraudulent transactions occurred on various dates and the amounts so debited were transferred to other customers accounts of the Bank, amounting approximately Rs.2.72 Crores.

5. It is alleged in the complaint that, Smt. Sajila Gurumurthy has in writing confessed that she had booked LIC polices for some customers of the Bank by debiting the amounts from the accounts of other customers, without their authorization and she has submitted a hand written record of such unauthorized transactions, mentioning the names of such LIC policy holders etc.

6. A preliminary investigation and internal audit of the unauthorized transactions were said to have been conducted and it is stated in the complaint that, further details of the unauthorized/fraudulent transactions and the amounts involved would be furnished, once the internal audit/investigation are concluded.

7. Further complaint/information was given to the Investigation Officer furnishing the details, requesting to take necessary action against Sajila Gurumurthy, Deepti Koppolu and Pallavi. D. R., alleging they have defrauded the Bank and committed criminal breach of trust by fraudulently misappropriating around Rs.22.04 crores, as on 04.02.2023.

8. It is alleged that, during further enquiry, it was found that, Smt. Sajila Gurumurthy with the help of the branch staff Smt. Deepti Koppolu (Customer Service Executive) and Smt. Pallavi D.R. (Outsourced Sales Executive) have misused the customers accounts without their mandate for transactions like cheque, voucher, request letter etc., and fraudulently modified/removed customers mobile number and their e-mail ids' so that customer do not get transaction alert. It is further alleged that, after Sajila Gurumurthy got transferred to Mission Road branch, fraudulent transactions were carried by Deepti Koppolu as directed by her, and the said Deepti Koppolu sent forged account statements to customers on various occasions to hide their illegal transactions and Smt. Pallavi carried out fraudulent transactions and made LIC polices in the name of her relatives etc. Further, the amount