Mr Hari Prasad M Vs State by

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4647 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. HARI PRASAD M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O MASTI GOWDA, WORKING AS THE MANAGER, INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, 116, 11^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM - 560 003. KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

RESIDING AT: NO.3, 7^TH A MAIN ROAD, BANDAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYALANGARA, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

STATE BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

SMT. RAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE K. VENKATESH,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO. 936, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR DATED 05.04.2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 05.04.2023 (COMPLAINT) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE FIR WAS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 506, AND 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.59/2023 AT X ADDL.CMM BENGALURU IN INDIRA NAGAR P.S, AT ANNEXURE-B AND A. b) QUASH OF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.59/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who is the Manager working in

¶26

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited and is arrayed as accused No.2, seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.0059/2023 registered by the Indira

¶27

Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 506 and 34 of IPC on the file of the X Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

2. Respondent No.2 – defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging that property bearing No.936 was originally owned by her father-in-law. Upon his demise, the property was partitioned between his two sons, namely K. Srinivasa and K. Venkatesh (the husband of respondent No.2), under a registered Partition Deed dated 22.11.2003. Respondent No.2 further stated that her husband passed away on 01.09.2008 and thereafter, she along with her two sons inherited his share in the property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is alleged that her brotherin-law, K. Ramachandra, conspired to usurp the property, and in collusion with one Mr. Hariprasad, Manager of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, along with certain representatives and officials of Indiabulls Organization, created false documents and mortgaged the property by depositing the title deeds.

¶32

3. Based on the said complaint, a crime was registered against the officials of Indiabulls Commercial

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Credit Limited. However, respondent No.2 also named the present petitioner as one of the accused involved in the conspiracy, and consequently, a crime came to be registered against him as well.

¶37

4. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that he is employed as a Manager in Indiabulls Housing Finance and has no connection whatsoever with Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the Identity Card issued by Indiabulls Housing Finance (Annexure–D) and the Mortgage Deed allegedly executed by respondent No.2 and her brother-in-law, K. Ramachandra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that, even assuming the allegations in the complaint to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner since he is not an employee of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited. It is further submitted that continuance of proceedings in Crime No.0059/2023 would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s career prospects in Indiabulls Housing Finance

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

and would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, a prayer is made to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶42

5. Per-contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sought to justify registration of the crime. It is submitted that respondent No.2, being a widow along with her children, has never mortgaged their legitimate share in favour of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited and the complaint was lodged under a bona fide impression that the petitioner was also an employee of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited. According to her, it is for the Investigating Officer to ascertain, through proper investigation, the role of officials involved in fabricating documents detrimental to the interest of respondent No.2 and her children.

¶43

6. Learned HCGP, supporting the registration of the crime, has submitted that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, and it is premature to interfere. He has

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

further pointed out that in the event it is established during the course of investigation that the petitioner is not an employee of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, the Investigating Officer is bound to take appropriate action before filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, at this stage, no indulgence is called for by this Court.

¶47

7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record by the petitioner.

¶48

8. Annexure–D is a Xerox copy of the Identity Card issued by Indiabulls Housing Finance, which clearly indicates that the petitioner is an employee of Indiabulls Housing Finance and not of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited. If that be so, the next crucial document, which requires close scrutiny by this Court, is the very document that formed the basis for registration of the present crime, namely, the Mortgage Deed alleged to have been executed by depositing the title deeds of the property in question.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The said document is the foundation for the entire

¶52

prosecution and therefore, assumes critical importance.

¶53

9. Respondent No.2 – Defacto complainant has seriously disputed the authenticity of this Mortgage Deed. It is her specific case that she has never appended her signature on the said document nor has she consented to mortgage her share of the property. According to her, the document is a creation of her brother-in-law, who is arrayed as accused No.1, in active collusion with certain officials of Indiabulls. It is further contended that by fabricating this document, accused No.1 has sought to mortgage the property without any authority or consent from respondent No.2 or her children.

¶54

10. Since the allegations relating to the genuineness and validity of the Mortgage Deed go to the very root of the dispute and constitute the substratum of the criminal proceedings, this Court finds it just and necessary to refer to and extract the relevant portion of the said document.

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Such an exercise would not only highlight the rival contentions but also assist in appreciating whether the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 was bonafide and whether the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused is sustainable. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Mortgage Deed is extracted herein below.

¶58

"MEMORANDUM OF ENTRY RECORDING DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS

¶59

This Memorandum of Entry recording of Title Deeds executed at Bengaluru on 20.07.2017.

¶60

By and between:

¶61

MR RAMACHANDRA K KUPPANNA SRINIVASA and MRS.R.RAJALAKSHMI, Mortgager No.2 and 3 represented by their GPA holder MR RAMACHANDRA K all are residing at No.936, 11^TH MAIN ROAD HAL 2^ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560008 and other details are mentioned in Schedule I hereunder (hereinafter referred to as the "Mortgagor(s)")

¶62

AND

¶63

M/s.Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, having its registered office at M-62 & 63, 1^st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001 and Branch Office at Branch Office at No.87/6, Richmond Road, Richmond Tower, Bangalore-560025, represented by Mr.Rajshekar

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(Hereinafter referred to as the "Lender" which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject, context or meaning thereof, be deemed to mean and include its executor(s), successor(s) and assign(s)."

¶67

11. On a careful perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the document in question – the Mortgage Deed is executed in favour of M/s.Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, having its registered office at Connaught Place, New Delhi and Branch Office at Richmond Road, Bengaluru, represented by one Mr.Rajshekar-Accused No.3, who has signed the said document as the Manager of Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited. Significantly, the petitioner is not a signatory to this crucial document. When the very substratum of the prosecution rests on the allegation of creation of false documents and mortgage of property without consent, the presence or participation of the petitioner in the execution of the document is a sine qua non for attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences.

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

12. To constitute the offence of cheating under

¶71

Section 415 of IPC, it is essential that there must be (i) a fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused, (ii) the complainant being deceived by such inducement, and (iii) consequent delivery of property or alteration of position by the complainant to her detriment. Likewise, to attract the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, there must be material to show that the petitioner has either made, used or abetted the making of a false document. In the absence of any role attributed to the petitioner in the execution or presentation of the Mortgage Deed, the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly absent.

¶72

13. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are

¶73

taken at their face value, the material produced does not disclose any act of inducement, deception, or fabrication attributable to the petitioner. The allegations, at best, point towards the role of accused No.1–the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 along with certain officials of Indiabulls

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Commercial Credit Limited, namely Accused No.3-

¶78

Rajashekar, but do not implicate the petitioner, who is admittedly an employee of a different entity, namely Indiabulls Housing Finance. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, despite there being no prima-facie material, would therefore amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.

¶79

14. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in order to secure the ends of justice.

¶80

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶81

to pass the following;

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

¶84

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.0059/2023 registered by Indiranagar Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:31586 CRL.P No. 4647 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Sections 465, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and now pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.2.

¶89

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶90

NBM

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mr Hari Prasad M v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hari Prasad M v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Kaushik. S. Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Usman T @ Usman Thang Ethail Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Venugopal. K. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Imran Khan Vs State by Basvangudi Women P S

Lakshmi Ranagaiah P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahindra Cie Automotive Ltd. Vs State by Jigani Police Station