In quashing petitions filed to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery involving a bank manager, the court held there was no abuse of process or interest of justice warranting interference, dismissing the applications.
Both criminal petitions were dismissed. No proceedings were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101056/2015 c/w. CRIMINAL PETITION No.101055/2015
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101056/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri. Ningappa S/o. Sannabasappa Hadli Age: 62 years, occ: Retired Bank Manager Residing at Near Shirur Park, Hubblli, Taluk: Hubballi, Dist: Dharwad.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure, Advocate)
AND:
…Respondents
(By Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for R-1; Sri. Girish V. Bhat for Sri.S.S. Yadrami, Advocate for R-2) ****
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1034/2013 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420, 201 r/w. Section 35 of IPC in so far as petitioner is concerned, the order sheet marked at Annexure A, in the interest of justice and equity.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101055/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri. Ningappa S/o. Sannabasappa Hadli Age: 62 years, occ: Retired Bank Manager Residing at Near Shirur Park, Hubblli, Taluk: Hubballi, Dist: Dharwad.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure, Advocate)
AND:
(By Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for R-1; Sri. Girish V. Bhat for Sri.S.S. Yadrami, Advocate for R-2) ****
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 3
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1033/2013 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 465,468, 471, 420, 201 r/w. Section 35 of IPC in so far as petitioner is concerned, the order sheet marked at Annexure A, in the interest of justice and equity.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Final Hearing through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R
In both these petitions, the petitioner is one and the same who is accused No.1 in Crime No.58/2013 of the first respondent Police Station. He has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1034/2013 and C.C.No.1033/2013 respectively. Both are said to be pending in the Court of the learned Civil judge and J.M.F.C. at Nippani (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420, 201 read with Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “IPC’).
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 4
is that, the present petitioner, while working as the Manager of Pattanakudi Branch of the second respondent - Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Bank”), during the years from 2009 to 2013, had in connivance with the remaining accused in both the Charge Sheets hatched a criminal conspiracy and joined by the other accused, enabled them to prepare the forged revenue records and enabled several of the accused to open Bank Accounts in his Branch with fictitious addresses and other necessary details and also entertained their loan applications under various agricultural loans amounting in total to a sum of `1,50,30,000/-, which at a later date came to be known by their Regional Office and Head Office and at the complaint of Respondent No.2, the first respondent Police filed two Charge Sheets, one, for the year 2010 and another, for the year 2011 for the alleged offences against forty-three
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 5
accused in total, wherein the present petitioner is
accused No.1 in both the Charge Sheets.
argument submitted that, the very statement of the Officer of the second respondent - Bank as CW-6 in “A” Charge Sheet would go to show that it was the present petitioner (accused No.1) himself who had brought to the notice of the higher authorities about several of the accused by submitting false documents, getting several types of agricultural loans under different Schemes released to them. It is based upon his written information, the Bank conducted the inspection and noticed the illegalities in the business transactions of the said Branch, thereby revealing that a sum of `1,50,30,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank to various ineligible loanees by accepting their forged and created documents.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 6
The learned counsel further submitted that the statements of several of the material witnesses, more particularly, CW-8, CW-9, CW-10 and CW-11 in “A” Charge Sheet would go to show that the kingpins behind the alleged crime are accused Nos.16 and 18, but not the present petitioner who is accused No.1. The present petitioner through out has been innocent and has been receiving the documents tendered before him, believed them and processed them in accordance with the law which entitled the applicants for obtaining the agricultural loans. Therefore, absolutely there is no material to show that the present petitioner was, in any manner, part of the alleged commission of crimes or that he was a partisan in the alleged conspiracy.
appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Bank, in their arguments submitted that the present petitioner who admittedly was the
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
Crl.P.No.101055/2015 7
Branch Manager of the second respondent – Bank
at Pattanakudi, had, for no reasons and intentionally committed dereliction of his duties and made several of the accused to open their Accounts in his Branch and to file applications for different types of loans under various Schemes. Further, without making any inspection or proper verification, he proceeded to sanction them the loan only in the expectation of return to be payable to him by the other accused including accused Nos.16 and 18 with whose conspiracy he participated in it and has committed a greater loss to the Bank.
It is the further submission of the learned counsels for respondents that the alleged innocence of the present petitioner has to be established in the Trial Court in a full-fledged trial and at this stage, prima facie , there is abundant material to proceed against him for trial.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 8
are titled as “A” Charge Sheet and “B” Charge Sheet by
the Investigating Officer for his convenience and which are said to have been filed for the relevant years 2010 and 2011 respectively would go to show that the Investigating Officer claims that he has filed “B” Charge Sheet as against thirty-three accused and “A” Charge Sheet as against eighteen accused and that the present petitioner is accused No.1 in both the Charge Sheets. The modus operandi alleged in both the Charge Sheets are exactly the same that, the accused No.1 (present petitioner) joined by the other accused, more particularly, accused by name Mallappa Devarayi Mirje and Sardara Khan Niyaz Mohammed Pathan - accused Nos.16 and 18 in “A” Charge Sheet respectively, has entertained the applications of the other accused and enabled them to open their Bank Accounts in his Branch for which he himself personally took interest in getting them introduced through existing Account holders and
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 9
also accepted the loan applications submitted in
their names, knowing fully well that, all those applicants’ addresses are fictitious addresses and that the documents furnished by them in support of their applications were forged or concocted. It is alleged that after entertaining the applications of the accused in both the Charge Sheets together, he has disbursed a total amount of loan of a sum of `1,50,30,000/- to the alleged applicants stating them that, they need not have to repay those loan amount to the Bank.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 10
actual cultivators of the land. According to the statements of several of the Bank Officers, whose statements including the complainant’s statement the Investigating Officer claims to have recorded, would go to show that, all of them have, in clear terms stated that, the present petitioner, as a Branch Manager did not conduct any such inspection or enquiry before processing the loan applications.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 11
forty accused persons and enabled them to open their Accounts in his Branch by requesting the above mentioned Charge Sheet witnesses who were the existing Account holders in the Branch, would create a serious doubt about the alleged innocence of the present petitioner, at this stage. Had he not actually aware of the alleged conspiracy where his role is also alleged, then, he would not have shown interest in opening their Accounts by volunteering himself to get the introducer’s signature to the applications. Therefore, the introduction of those accused to his Branch was made by none else than the present petitioner.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
Crl.P.No.101055/2015
12
the complainant, the petitioner herein did not
conduct any local inspection or did not verify about the authenticity and genuinity of the documents furnished by those intended loanees. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has arrived to conclude in his Charge Sheets that there is dereliction of the minimum care which the petitioner as a Branch Manager of a Bank ought to have taken since has not been taken and his interest in opening forty-three fictitious Bank Accounts in his Branch by volunteering himself to introduce the accused to the Branch through the existing Account holders would show that, he had not only the knowledge about the commission of the crimes, but also was a partisan in the alleged conspiracy.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w. Crl.P.No.101055/2015 13
Charge Sheet, where CW-6 in his capacity as a Senior
Manager of the second respondent - Bank and CW-7 also as an Assistant Manager of the second respondent – Bank are shown to have stated that the information about the alleged scam was brought to the notice of their higher authorities in writing by none else than the present petitioner (accused No.1) himself.
Relying upon the said portion of their statements, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that had really the petitioner been a partisan in the alleged conspiracy or wanted to defraud the Bank, he would not have himself revealed or exposed the alleged scam to his higher authorities in writing.
the petitioner is not acceptable, at this stage, for the reason that, the very same statements of those witnesses would also go to show that, none else than Sri. Santosh Ganeshappa Kaginele (CW-7) in “A” Charge
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
Crl.P.No.101055/2015
14
Sheet, after transferring to Pattanakudi Branch of the
second respondent – Bank, had commenced his work under the present petitioner, and while on his duty of obtaining signature of the loanees on the loan documents noticed that, several of the addresses given by the accused/loanees in the instant case were all fake addresses and none of them were available in the addresses given by them and his enquiry also revealed that none of them had the described lands in their names in the villages whose descriptions were shown in the revenue records submitted by them. The said Charge Sheet witness also claims to have brought to the notice of none else than the present petitioner, who was his Branch Manager at that time, only to get a reply that Santosh Ganeshappa Kaginele (CW-7) need not bother about the same and to just ignore the same. Had actually the present petitioner been diligent, he would not have asked CW-7 – Sri. Santosh Ganeshappa Kaginele to keep quiet and not to proceed further. This
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
Crl.P.No.101055/2015 15
supports the contention taken up by the learned counsel for second respondent – Bank in his arguments that the present petitioner, knowing fully well and aware of himself that the alleged loans which are going to be disbursed are loans for non-existing properties and that those loans can never be recovered. Thus, it shows that, the present petitioner too was a party in the alleged conspiracy.
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
16
petitioner. The said accused is also shown to have stated that for all these co-operation and involvement shown by the petitioner, he was rewarded with a sum of `28,00,000/- by them. Though it is an alleged voluntary statement of an accused shown to have been given before the Investigating Officer, but when read with the alleged statements of the other Charge Sheet witnesses at this stage, the said alleged voluntary statement of accused No.16 cannot be ignored in-toto.
On the other hand, the materials placed by the Investigating Officer in both the Charge Sheets would go to show that he has collected sufficient materials to subject the present petitioner for trial towards the alleged involvement in the conspiracy and alleged commission of the crimes as shown in the Charge Sheets. As such, I am of the opinion that, neither there is any abuse of the process of the Court nor interest of
Crl.P.No.101056/2015 c/w.
Crl.P.No.101055/2015 17
justice warrants interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Both these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A.No.2/2017 in both the petitions does not survive for
consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings in crime sheets amounting to forgery and cheating should be quashed on the ground of abuse of process.
Whether there is any interest of justice warranting interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC at this stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ningappa S/o. Sannabasappa Hadli
The State of Karnataka
Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank
H.B. Prabhakara Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
