Suresh. N. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER SUBSEQUENT TO REGISTRATION OF SECOND COMPLAINT DATED 11.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND LEARNED JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 05.10.2021 IN THE ORDER SHEET AT PAGE NO.82 IN CRIME NO.56/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEAIRNG/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The present criminal petition is filed with the following

¶35

prayers:-

¶36

"i) Quash the proceedings against the petitioner subsequent to registration of second complaint dated 11.06.2019 vide Annexure-C and learned Judge of the trial Court has passed on Order Dated 05.10.2021 in the Order Sheet at page No.82 in Crime No.56/2019 vide Annexure-D;

¶37

ii) Quash the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Crime No.56/2019, vide Annexure-D on application filed under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. by the second respondent Sri S.R. Udayashankar, consequently directing to transfer the amount of Rs.14,26,286.10/- from the account of the accused vide Account No.0472101040548, Canara Bank, Hanumanthnagar Branch, Bengaluru so far as the petitioner concerned and consequently direct the second respondent to re-transfer the said amount to the petitioner's account forthwith and

¶38

iii) Declare that the order dated 15.04.2019 freezing the petitioner's account at Canara Bank, Hanumanthnagar Branch, Bengaluru vide Account No.0472101040548 unsustainable; and bad in law.

¶39

iv) Pass such other order/s which are deemed to be fit in the nature and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Respondent No.2 is said to be the owner of a business concern. He had employed the petitioner as well as another person by name Nagendra Rao as an Accountant, on the allegation of the said Nagendra Rao committing theft, misappropriation of money and also cheating the second respondent, the complainant filed a complaint against the said Nagendra Rao and an FIR bearing No.56/2019 came to be registered by the first respondent-Police. During investigation, it is alleged that they also found that the petitioner herein was also involved in the theft and misappropriation of money belonging to the second respondent and cheating. For the said reason, action was initiated to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. Thereafter, on an application made by the second respondent, the impugned order is passed by the learned Magistrate wherein the interim custody of Rs.14,26,286.10/lying in the account of the petitioner which was frozen be released and gave interim custody to the second respondent. The second respondent has taken custody of the same after completing with necessary formalities like executing the necessary indemnity bond and the like.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner including freezing of his account and release of the money in favour of the second respondent, the present petition is filed.

¶47

The case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the offences alleged. It is submitted that in the complaint no allegations are made against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no guarantee that the second respondent will not misuse the money, and he may not be in a position to honour the indemnity bond if the petitioner were to succeed in the trial. It is also contended that the amount frozen was not the subject matter of the case. On the said grounds, it is submitted that the petition be allowed as prayed for.

¶48

Per contra , learned counsel for the second respondent submits that he has been able to prima facie establish that there has been theft, misappropriation of money and cheating, by which money has flowed out of the account of the second respondent to the third parties. Because of which, he gave a

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

complaint against one Nagendra Rao, who was a prima facie suspect and upon due investigation, it is now found that the petitioner herein also was a party to it and the amounts have gone into the account of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to explain as to how such huge amounts have come into his account and for that reason, he justifies that the impugned order be sustained and the petition be dismissed.

¶52

6. Prima facie , the second respondent has been able to establish that money has been transferred from his account to the third party account. Whether the said Nagendra Rao or the petitioner is guilty of the theft, misappropriation of money or cheating or other offences as alleged, is a matter of trial. Because during the investigation, the jurisdictional police was of the opinion that amounts belonging to the second respondent has gone into the account of the petitioner without any justifiable reasons and they have requested for freezing of his account and the trial Court has come to the conclusion that under the circumstances prima facie the second respondent is entitled to the said amount and has given interim custody of the amount in his favour.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

However, during the course of arguments, both the petitioner and the second respondent submitted that they would be satisfied if the second respondent be directed to deposit the amount in his custody before the trial Court, with a further direction for depositing the same in an interest bearing fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank and after investigation, liberty may be reserved to the parties to make necessary application to the trial Court to release the same in favour of the person who, as per the investigation would be entitled to. This in my opinion serves the interest of justice.

¶57

Hence, the following:-

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The second respondent shall deposit the amount received by way of impugned order before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.

¶60

ii. The said amount shall be kept in the interest bearing fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank by the trial Court.

¶61

8 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:43493 CRL.P No. 3516 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

iii. Respondent No.1 - Police shall conduct the investigation as expeditiously as possible and the parties shall co-operate for the same.

¶65

iv. After investigation is completed and police report is filed, liberty is granted to the petitioner and the second respondent to make necessary application for release of the amount deposited and the trial Court

¶66

shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

¶67

v. The impugned order stands modified accordingly.

¶68

vi. The petitioner is also given liberty to move necessary application before the trial Court to have his bank account defrozen in the light of the disputed amount being deposited before the trial Court.

¶69

vii. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is subsequently aggrieved by the police report to be filed by respondent No.1 - Police, after due investigation, he is always having the liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶70