SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17276

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V.SRISHANANDA
MAHALINGAPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA GHANTI – Appellant
Versus
SRI. OPPATTESHWARA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA – Respondent
CRL.P 103131/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103131 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA GHANTI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TRADING BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, NOW AT AREKURATTI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

2. SMT. PARAMESHWARI ALIAS PAVITHRA W/O. NAGAPPA GONDA, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. SINECURE, R/O. ULAVI VILLAGE, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-577434.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. OPPATTESHWARA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR L K A A X T M TI A M N ANI OWNER OF PRIYADHARSHINI HOTEL.

L C D o o h c u a a r r t t w i o o a n f d : K B H a e r ig n n h c a h taka, R/O. SHASTRI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, NEAR S.P. CIRCLE, BALLARI-583103.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BALLARI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, BALLARI, R/BY SPP DHARWAD, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2;

SRI. RAJASHEKAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO. 656/2025 BALLARI CEN CRIME P.S CRIME NO. 44/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 3, 21(1) (2) (3) OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT 2019, U/SEC. 66(D) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND U/SEC. 420 R/W 34 OF IPC., PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BALLARI, VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERSS/A1 AND A2 HEREIN CONCERNED AS NULL AND VOID.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri.Raghavendra Purohit, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt.Kirtilatha R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Rajshekar B. Halli, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, Hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’ with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray:-

A) To quash the Proceedings in Spl.C.No. 656/2025 Ballari CEN Crime P.S. Crime No. 44/2023 for the alleged offence punishable under section 3, 21(1) (2) (3) of The banning of unregulated deposit schemes Act 2019, U/sec. 66(d) of Information Technology Act 2000 and U/sec. 420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C., pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Court Ballari, vide Annexure-D in so far as

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein concerned as null and void.

B) Issue any other order as this Hon'ble court may deems fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the CEN Police, Ballari, alleging that the petitioners herein had floated a concern by name Success Capital Company and had lured public by representing that if a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- was invested with their company, every day sum of ₹ 2,000/- would be paid for of 100 years and if any other person is introduced to the Company by the person who invest the money will get extra 10% of the amount deposited amount.

3.2 It is alleged that after speaking to the first petitioner, the complainant said to have invested ₹.10,00,047/- from his savings bank account through RTGS into the account of the petitioners in the name of Success Capital Company. Second petitioner is the administrator of the said Success Capital Company.

3.3 When the petitioners failed to make the payment as agreed, the second respondent has approached the jurisdictional Police and lodged the complaint. It is also known from the complaint averments that C.Padmanab Reddy invested ₹ 19,97,112/-, Smt.Vani invested ₹ 25,00,000/- and Vijayalakshmi invested sum of ₹ 4,60,600/-. None of them were repaid and therefore sought for action.

4. Police after registering the case, investigated the mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top