Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10341/2023 C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10708/2023 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10341/2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. BALAGANGADHAR C.V.
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, EX-PRESIDENT, HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDING AT NO.7/B, NEW NO.115, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, NEAR JYOTHI JUICE CENTER, BENGALURU - 560050.
2 . MR. SHIVASHANKAR M, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, EX-VICE PRESIDENT, HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDING AT NO.5/1. SB CROSS ROAD, VV PURAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU -560004
3 . MR. MALLARI GOWDA, S/O BOOGASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, VICE-PRESIDENT, HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.104/105, NEW NO.9, MTHRUKA, BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, 5TH BLOCK, ITTAMADU, BENGALURU - 560085.
4 . MR. PRAKASH B.S, S/O B.K. SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.64, 1ST MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGRA, BENGALURU - 560028.
5 . MRS. SUJATHA H.A, W/O SRI SURESH BABU V, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.67/3, 18TH MAIN, BSK 1ST STATE, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560050.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHUTOSH K L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.
2 . MR. SRIMURTHY N, S/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY L, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, SRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI COMPLEX, KUMBARPETE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560002.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15554/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.M.M. COURT, BENGALURU, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B AND 201 OF IPC AND ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10708/2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PRESIDENT, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.10, 2ND ‘A’ CROSS, KATRIGUPPE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.
2 . MR. SHIVU M., S/O LATE MUTHABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.426, CHANDRASHEKAR AZAD ROAD, AK, K.G.NAGAR BENGALURU-560019.
3 . MR. K.M.NARAYANA S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO 80/23, 8TH MAIN, DATTATREYANAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.
4 . MR. C.V.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.92/14, 1ST ‘C’ CROSS, 5TH PHASE, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.
5 . MR. UMASHANKAR C, S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.360, KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560019.
6 . MR. JAVARE GOWDA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RESIDENT OF NO.148, 5TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085
7 . MR MEENA KUMAR, S/O KUMAR DIRECTOR, HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.5, SIDDARAMESHAWARA LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560098. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHUTOSH K.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . MR. SRIMURTHY N., S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY L, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 2, SRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI COMPLEX, KUMBARPETE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15554/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.M.M COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B AND 201 OF IPC AND ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.07.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the respective petitioners in C.C.No.15554/2020 pending on the file of CMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 201 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant who is respondent No.2 in both the petitions in the complaint that these petitioners colluding with accused Nos.1 to 4 have indulged in creation of documents with an intention to cheat the prospective purchasers. The petitioners who are the office bearers of Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Limited that is Ex-President, Ex-Vice-President and present Vice-President and Directors have joined hands along with one Lashminasimha Murthy and had entered into a joint agreement with Archana Jayaprasad and the same was registered on 29.10.2014. The registered GPA came to be executed by Archana Jayaprasad in favour of K Lakshminarasimha Murthy and K Lalitha on the very same day and all of them joined together in executing the registered sale deed in favour of Archana Jayaprasad and hence, all of them have indulged in creating of depositing of memorandum of title deed in favour of Manager, Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Limited. It is further contended that all these petitioners knowingfully well that the sale deeds are executed in favour of the brother, brother’s wife, sister with an intention to cheat the complainant and prospective purchasers, they have indulged in creation of documents to defeat the claim of the complainant.
4. The main allegation against these petitioners that they are the agreement holders with accused Nos.1 to 9. In this regard, a private complaint was registered in PCR No.10589/2018. Having considered the allegations made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to investigate the matter. After the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against these petitioners and the learned Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process. It is also contended in both the petitions that accused Nos.1 to 9 are the owners of the property and they have created the charge over the property and borrowers have committed default in payment of loan. The bank has initiated steps under SARFASEI Act to recover the possession of the property. In order to prevent the legal action, a false complaint is filed and the same is an abuse of process. It is also contended that the allegation in the charge sheet would clearly shows that the entire allegations are against accused Nos.1 to 9 and there is no allegation whatsoever involving these petitioners in the criminal case. It is also contended that when steps to recover the dues has been initiated on 05.01.2018 by issuing demand notice, thereafter possession notice was issued on 15.06.2018 and sale notice was issued on 10.07.2018 but the complaint was filed on 04.08.2018 i.e., after taking of legal steps. It is also an allegation that suits are filed in Civil Court and two writ petitions are also filed before this Court with an intention to prevent the Bank from initiation of proceeding against the property to recover the dues. Lending to the borrowers on security of the property is the normal business activity of the Bank. Lending of money from the Bank to the borrowers on security cannot be considered as an offence. The complainant cannot be considered as an aggrieved person to the alleged crime. The very fact that he has not sued for specific performance of contract till now which clearly shows that his claim is false and there is no bona fide in his claim. It is also contend that filing of private complaint without following the mandate of the Apex Court is unsustainable and the reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is mechanica
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
