Allowed¶62

S M Ramamurthy v. State by Central Bureau

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025CRL.P/2162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.482 CrPC quashing; CBI/ACB prosecution; Canara Bank loan fraud; criminal conspiracy S.120B IPC; cheating S.420 IPC; forgery/fabricated documents Ss.468, 471 IPC; M/S Phoenix Plasts Company; employees as co-accused; bank officials as accused Nos.6-9; prime accused proceedings quashed with finality after Apex Court affirmation; Spl.C.C.No.243/2004; Crl.P.No.2162/2022; Crl.P.No.8483/2021; earlier Crl.P.Nos.3817 and 3819 of 2017 (quashed 10.02.2021); XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge / Special Judge CBI Cases, Bangalore; Karnataka High Court; Justice M.I. Arun; petitions allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Petitions (Crl.P.No.2162/2022 and Crl.P.No.8483/2021) allowed; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 pending against the petitioners (accused Nos.2, 3 and 4) quashed. ¶62

S M Ramamurthy Vs State by Central Bureau — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Criminal Petitions (Crl.P.No.2162/2022 and Crl.P.No.8483/2021) allowed; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 pending against the petitioners (accused Nos.2, 3 and 4) quashed.

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 can be maintained against the petitioners (accused Nos.2, 3 and 4), whose sole alleged role is that, as employees of accused No.1, they conspired with him for his benefit, when the proceedings against prime accused No.1 himself have already been quashed. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

Since this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 himself (prime accused) in Crl.P.No.3817/2017 connected with Crl.P.No.3819/2017, and that order has attained finality, prosecuting accused Nos.2 to 4 (the petitioners) does not serve any purpose.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos.2, 3 and 4) in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004, pending before the XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Bangalore, stand quashed.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J.), 10.10.2025 — Criminal Petitions under S.482 CrPC by accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 (Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru), charged under Ss.120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC for allegedly fabricating documents and conspiring with accused No.1, Proprietor of M/S Phoenix Plasts Company, to defraud Canara Bank by fraudulently obtaining a loan for his benefit. The Court had earlier quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 5 (Crl.P.No.3819/2017) and accused Nos.6 to 9 (bank officials, Crl.P.3817/2017) by order dated 10.02.2021, which order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and had attained finality. Holding that prosecuting the remaining accused, whose only alleged role was acting as employees of the prime accused, served no purpose, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and allowed both petitions. Respondent-CBI did not dispute the propositions of fact and law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2162 OF 2022 C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8483 OF 2021

¶8

IN CRL.P No. 2162/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S M RAMAMURTHY SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.880, SANKARAPPA CROSS, HEBBAGODI MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. K.S. PRADEEP SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU Of INVESTIGATION/ACB, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REPRESENTED BY SPL.PP.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 DIRECTING FRAMING OF CHARGES AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENT FRAMING OF CHARGES ON 03.12.2012 BY THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDE IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.243/2004 AND ETC.,

¶20

IN CRL.P NO. 8483/2021

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

ASOKAN. K S/O LATE K. KANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.MIG 36, AVALAHALLI HUDCO,

¶23

HOSUR - 635 109, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, STATE OF TAMIL NADU

¶24

M K BALACHANDRA

¶25

S/O LATE KADAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.184, GURUKRUPA 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, RISHIKESH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 063.

¶26

...PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. K.S. PRADEEP SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AND:

¶31

STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/ ACB, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032, REPRESENTED BY SPL.PP.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2011 DIRECTING FRAMING OF CHARGES AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS AND CONSEQUENT FRAMING OF CHARGES ON 03.12.2012 BY THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.243/2004 AND ETC.,

¶35

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Crl.P.No.2162/2022 is filed by accused No.4 in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004, pending on the file of XLVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Bangalore and Crl.P.No.8483/2021 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 therein. All the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004, pending against them.

¶42

On the allegation that accused No.1 is the Proprietor of one M/S Phoenix Plasts Company and he, along with accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are his employees and few others conspired together to defraud Canara Bank by fraudulently obtaining a loan for the benefit of accused No.1, Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 has been filed and the accused therein have been sought to be prosecuted.

¶43

The allegation of the prosecution is that the documents have been fabricated in the process and that accused Nos.1 to 5 therein, which include the petitioners herein, are charged with the offences under Sections

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

120B, read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 have been challenged by accused Nos.1 and 5 in Crl.P.No.3819/2017 and accused Nos.6 to 9

¶47

in Crl.P.3817/2017. This Court has quashed the proceedings against the said accused by its Order dated 10.02.2021. The present petitions have been filed by the remaining accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 for quashing of the proceedings against them also in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004.

¶48

The case of the petitioners is that accused Nos.6 to 9 are the Bank officials and accused No.1 is the Proprietor of M/S Phoenix Plasts Company and the allegation made by the prosecution is that for the benefit of accused No.1, all other accused conspired with accused No.1 to defraud Canara Bank and the offences have been committed. It is submitted that when the proceedings have been quashed against accused No.1, who is the prime accused, the question of maintaining the same against the present accused against whom the only

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

allegation is that they being employees of accused No.1,

¶52

have conspired with him to benefit accused No.1 does not arise. On the said ground, it is prayed that the present petition also be allowed. It is further submitted that the order passed in Crl.P.No.3817/2017 and connected with Crl.P.No.3819/2017 has attained a finality, as the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶53

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned propositions of facts as well as law.

¶54

Admittedly, the allegation of the prosecution is

¶55

that the accused in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004 conspired with each other and fabricated certain documents with a view to defraud Canara Bank for the benefit of accused No.1, with accused No.1 being the prime accused, who hatched the conspiracy and directed the other accused to act in

¶56

accordance with it.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:40054 CRL.P No. 2162 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 8483 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

This Court in Crl.P.No.3817/2017 connected with Crl.P.No.3819/2017, has quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 himself, which has attained finality. Under the said circumstances, prosecuting accused Nos.2 to 4 that is the petitioners herein, does not serve any purpose.

¶61

For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in Spl.C.C.No.243/2004, pending on the file of XLVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Bangalore, stand quashed.

¶62

The Criminal Petitions are hereby allowed.

¶63

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

S M Ramamurthy v. State by Central Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M Ramamurthy v. State by Central Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Bachegowda/Gouda Vs State of Karnataka

Shiva Kumar G .P. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S.Origin D Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. B. N. Nagaraja

Shri. Ravindra Singh Singhvi Vs Union of India

Sri. Arun Kumar. C Vs Smt. Gayathri Madhava

R C Savithramma Vs S Thilaga