Dismissed

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State by

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021CRL.P/1195/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by HDFC Bank officers to quash order directing police inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Court held it was too early for admission as Magistrate had not decided to issue process; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed noting premature filing before Magistrate's final decision on issuance of process.

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1195 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013. Represented by Senior Manager, Mr. Bala Gatla, Aged about 50 years, S/o Dayananda Gatla,

¶9

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Aged about 41 years, S/o Dwarka Prasad Singh, The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., No.548/D, Indiranagar Branch, Maruthi Mansion, CMH Road, Bengaluru-560038.

¶10

Mr. Patrick Martin, Aged about 43 years, S/o Maria Santhanam, Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Sri Nithyakalyani Tower, No.34, Krishnaraya Tank, 2^nd Floor, North Well Street, Madurai-625001.

¶11

¶12

Mr. Praveen Achar, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late S.R.Achar, Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kasturaba Road Branch, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Mr. Srinivasan R., Aged about 48 years, S/o Late R.Rajendran, Retail Asset Officer, HDFC Bank Ltd., Sri Nithyakalyani Tower, No.34, Krishnarayar Tank, 2^nd Floor, North Well Street, Madurai-625001. …Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri Mahabaleshwar Chitrigemath, Advocate) AND

¶15

The State by Cubbon Park, Police Station, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru-560001. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001. 2. Smt. M.S.Praveen Lakshmi, W/o M.S.Senthilnathan, Aged about 31 years, Residing at No.104, Vinyas Rennaissance, University Main Road, Bengaluru-560072. …Respondents (By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1; Smt. M.S.Praveen Lakshmi, (Party in Person) - R2)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble IV ACMM, Bengaluru in PCR No.4819/2018 dated 31.08.2019 and etc.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission , this day, through video conferencing, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

¶21

setting aside the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by IV ACMM, Bengaluru in PCR.No.4819/2018. The petitioners are all arrayed as accused 1 to 5 in the said private complaint.

¶22

Briefly stated, the facts are as below:

¶23

The second respondent is the complainant in the PCR. There was a matrimonial dispute between her and her husband. She filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, M.C.No.525/2018, in the Family Court, Bengaluru. In the proceedings, she made certain submissions with regard to her income which

¶24

¶25

was disputed by the husband. He furnished statement of bank accounts of the second respondent at HDFC Bank. Therefore the second respondent initiated action against her husband and officers of the HDFC Bank by filing PCR.No.7123/2015. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the police which was registered as C.C.No.16951/2017. It appears that while the matter was under investigation, the 5^th petitioner herein gave a statement before the police and submitted certain documents pertaining to loan and e-mails of the second respondent. Therefore the second respondent made another complaint against the petitioners herein for divulging her personal information. This is the complaint in which the petitioners are arrayed as accused. The learned

¶26

¶27

Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the second respondent, referred the matter to further investigation to police in accordance with section 202 Cr.P.C. by passing an order on 31.08.2019, which is challenged in this petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the petitioners being the bank officers, furnished certain information to the police during investigation of earlier complaint made by the second respondent, it does not mean that they divulged her personal information. They were supposed to furnish information to the police officer, who was conducting the investigation and this would not constitute any offence. Now that the Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are likely to be arrested. He also submitted that the Magistrate should not have

¶29

¶30

referred the matter for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶31

The second respondent appears in person and submits that the petitioners 2 to 5, being the bank officers were not supposed to divulge her personal information to anybody in contravention of the banking rules. But they gave information to the investigating officer and thereby they have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. In this view, an offence has been constituted and therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

If the facts narrated above are considered, it may be stated that the Magistrate has not yet taken a decision whether to issue process against the petitioners or not. After recording sworn statement of the second respondent, who is the complainant in the PCR, if the Magistrate decides to postpone issuance of

¶33

¶34

process and directs for investigation to be made by the police officer under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the Magistrate has taken a decision to issue process against the accused according to section 204 Cr.P.C. Any direction given to the police officer under section 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be understood as the investigation ordered under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Under section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has every power to call for a report from any police officer or any other person to decide whether process is to be issued to the accused or not. In case the Magistrate is not satisfied even after the police officer submits his report under section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may decide not to issue process and dismiss the complaint in accordance with section 203 Cr.P.C. This being the position of law, just because the Magistrate has now ordered investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that interest of the petitioners has

¶35

¶36

been affected. It is too early for the petitioners to say that the Magistrate will certainly issue process against them in accordance with section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶37

If the petitioners have got an apprehension of

¶38

being arrested because of investigation taken up by the police under section 202 Cr.P.C., it may be stated that while conducting enquiry or investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C., the police cannot arrest the petitioners. Therefore from the above discussion, I come to conclusion that this petition does not deserve

¶39

to be admitted. Hence it is dismissed.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K. Mahesh Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu Vs Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri John Peter Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Lakshmi Steel Suppliers Vs Samruddhi Realty Ltd.

M/S Concept Horizon Infra Pvt.Ltd Vs Aparna Nagesh Prakash