Cannot Seek Quashing Merely Because Name Did Not Appear In Original Complaint: Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Bank Fraud Case
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution intiated against a person accused of defrauding a bank, saying he cannot seek quashing of the offence solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puneet H R who is accused for offences punishable under Sections...
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution intiated against a person accused of defrauding a bank, saying he cannot seek quashing of the offence solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puneet H R who is accused 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.
The bench said “The petitioner's involvement emerged during investigation and therefore, he cannot claim protection solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.”
Pramod Kumar Y.S who was working as Assistant General Manager and Branch Head of IDBI Bank Ltd, had lodged a complaint with the police alleging misappropriation of funds by one Sajila Gurumurthy (accused No.1) Manager, IDBI, based on which the aforementioned FIR was registered against her.
It was alleged that at the instance of Sajila Gurumurthy certain unauthorized transfers of funds had 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.
The police during investigation alleged that after the amount was fraudulently credited to the beneficiaries, around Rs.3.37 Crores was transferred through RTGS/NEFT to various bank accounts of the petitioner. Thus he was arraigned as accused in the chargesheet.
The primary contention raised by the petitioner seeking to quash the prosecution was that the complaint was lodged exclusively against one Smt. Sajila Gurumurthy, then Branch Manager. Petitioner is not arraigned as an accused in the FIR and there are no allegations against him. He was subsequently falsely implicated and arraigned as accused No.4, while filing the charge sheet.
Further, there is no fiduciary relationship between the Bank and the petitioner, he is a bank account holder and no entrustment of property is made to him. There is no inducement, cheating or fraudulent act committed by him and no evidence regarding conspiracy exists.
The complainant opposed the plea submitting that out of the huge amount misappropriated, more than Rs.3.80 Crores was illegally transferred from the accounts of other account holders to the account of the petitioner maintained with other banks. During investigation the original sale deeds and white colour BMW car were seized from the petitioner, the said transactions/purchase were made from the amount obtained fraudulently. It is contended, petitioner has misutilized the amount credited to his accounts illegally, for his personal use.
The state government also contended that involvement of the petitioner is clearly made out during investigation and in view of prima-facie case, proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the bench said, “It is clearly stated in the complaint that further details would be furnished, when the internal audit or investigation are concluded. In the subsequent information/ complaint dated 07.02.2023, it is clearly stated that during enquiry it was revealed that amount was fraudulently credited to the beneficiary and around Rs.3.37 Crores was transferred through RTGS/NEFT to the various bank accounts of the petitioner.”
Noting that investigation revealed that accused Nos.1 in active collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 and in connivance with the petitioner/accused No.4 had transferred a total sum of Rs.3,35,13,122.37, from the IDBI bank accounts, Gandhinagar branch of different account holders and deposits made by customers, to the ICICI bank accounts belonging to petitioner, which he utilised.
The court held “At this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner or the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. It is not in dispute that the further investigation is pending. Hence, not arraigning some of the other persons named by the complainant as accused in the charge sheet is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.”
Observing that “Mere absence of an accused persons name in the initial complaint does not, by itself, absolve them of criminal liability. An accused whose involvement surfaces during the course of investigation may subsequently be added to the charge sheet. This legal proposition is well settled.”
The court said “Having perused the material on record, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner or the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner are not made out.”
Appearance: Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty H for Petitioner.
HCGP Rashmi Patel FOR R-1.
Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahallu for Advocates Vinithra Srinivasan, Varun Srinivasan for R-2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Case Title: Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3429 OF 2023