KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
Puneeth H.R. – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka by its Upparpet Police Station and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.3429 of 2023
Decided on 27.5.2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 319 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 358 and 528] – Prosecution of additional accused – Charge-sheet filed 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 and Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Mere absence of an accused person’s name in initial complaint does not, by itself, absolve him of criminal liability – An accused whose involvement surfaces during course of investigation may subsequently be added to charge-sheet – Petitioner’s involvement emerged during investigation and he cannot claim protection solely on the ground that his name did not appear in original complaint – As per investigation, it was discovered that funds from various sources were credited to petitioner’s accounts, which was utilized by him to purchase movable and immovable properties – At this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie case against petitioner or ingredients of offences alleged are not made out – Petition dismissed. (Paras 28, 30 and 31)
Result: Quashing Petition dismissed.
ORDER (CAV)
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 was fraudulently credited to the beneficiaries and a sum of Rs.96.00 lakhs was fraudulently transferred to various bank accounts of Gurumurthy, husband of Sajila. Further, around Rs.4.7 Crores was fraudulently transferred to the IDBI accounts of Thyagaraju B.P., Somu B.P., Maruthi B.P., and Thyagaraju B.P. accepted the said fraudulent transactions and remitted a sum of Rs.2.25 Crores.
9. It is also alleged that after the amount was fraudulently credited to the beneficiary, around Rs.
Prosecution of additional accused – Mere absence of an accused person’s name in initial complaint does not, by itself, absolve him of criminal liability – An accused whose involvement surfaces during....
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.
The court ruled that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and mere repayment of funds does not negate the wrongdoing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR must prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. The court emphasized the need for ev....
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction, confirming that prima facie evidence supported the charges of forgery and misappropriation despite the petitioner's defenses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings when the material produced by the ....
The court upheld that serious allegations of fraud warranted ongoing investigation, as the petitioners were not subject to prosecution nor double jeopardy.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.