Disposed¶45

Niranjan G S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026CRL.P/1555/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 CrPC; CRL.P 1555/2019; Karnataka High Court; R. Nataraj J; Crime No.343/2018 Bilikere Police Station; IPC 409, 471, 477A, 420 r/w 34; cooperative bank misappropriation Rs.13,75,92,487/-; internal audit report as basis of FIR; statutory audit clean chit to be considered; investigation to continue; no-arrest direction pending custodial interrogation justification; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quashing the FIR; the investigating officer is directed to consider the statutory audit findings, other relevant material and the society's communications to statutory authorities before concluding the investigation, and not to effect any arrest until material justifying custodial interrogation is collected. ¶45

Niranjan G S Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.343/2018 and the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The investigating officer shall consider the findings of the statutory audit, other relevant material and the communications of the society to the concerned statutory authorities, and thereafter conclude the investigation in accordance with law.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances, the least that could be done was an investigation by respondent No.1; the contention that the petitioner received a clean chit in the statutory audit shall be considered by the investigating officer before finalising the final report.

¶44

Key takeaways

No interference is warranted with the first information report registered against the petitioner; accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.ratio¶45
The Investigating Officer shall not effect any arrest until all such material is collected which justifies a custodial interrogation.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.343/2018 dated 17.09.2018 of Bilikere Police Station (Ss.409, 471, 477A, 420 r/w 34 IPC), registered on the complaint of the Branch Manager of Mysore and Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Central Bank based on an internal audit report alleging misappropriation of Rs.13,75,92,487/- by the petitioner (Branch Manager, District Central Cooperative Bank, Bilikere) along with another person. HELD: (i) the least that could be done in the facts and circumstances was an investigation by the police; the petitioner's contention that a statutory audit gave him a clean chit shall be considered by the investigating officer before finalising the final report; (ii) no interference warranted with the FIR; petition disposed of; (iii) investigating officer to consider the statutory audit findings, other relevant material and the society's communications to statutory authorities, and conclude investigation in accordance with law; (iv) no arrest until material justifying custodial interrogation is collected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NIRANJAN G.S. S/O. SRI C. SESHAIAH 49 YEARS, MANAGER, DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK, BILIKERE BRANCH, BILIKERE-571 103, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. (AS IN THE F.I.R)

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BILIKERE POLICE STATION, BILIKERE - 571103, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. 2. M.T. SHASHIDHARA S/O (NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER), MAJOR, BRANCH MANAGER, MYSORE AND CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK (LTD)., BILIKERE BRANCH, BILIKERE-571103, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶14

&RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. R. SHIVACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT))

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED IN THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR.NO.343/2018 DATED 17.09.2018 REGISTERED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BILIKERE POLICE STATION, BILIKERE, HUNSUR TALUK, FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 471, 477A, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an FIR drawn in Crime No. 343/2018 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 471, 477A, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC').

¶24

The respondent No.2, being the Branch Manager of Mysore and Chamarajnagar District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. informed respondent No.1 on 16.09.2018 that several financial discrepancies were noticed in the head office of the Mysore and Chamaraj Nagar District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. In that regard, the Assistant Manager and the Senior Assistant of the Accounts Department were deputed to conduct

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

an audit. Accordingly, a six page report was submitted by them to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Assistant Co-operative Development Officer, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysuru and the society.

¶28

Respondent No.2 was directed to lodge a complaint in view of the financial irregularities pointed out. Accordingly, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that during his tenure at Bilikere Branch of the Society, some members had obtained membership in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and had opened accounts at the said branch. It was further stated that several accounts were opened in the names of farmers with an intention to avail loans. It is alleged that the petitioner herein along with one Mr. Sreeramappa Pujar had misappropriated funds belonging to the members amounting to Rs.13,75,92,487/- and had transferred the same to their personal accounts. Respondent No.2 therefore requested respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action. Consequently, a case in Crime No.343/2018 was registered for the aforesaid offences.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid registration of an FIR, has filed this petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the audit report cannot be the basis for initiating criminal action against the petitioner. He further submitted that an internal audit report cannot be the basis for prosecuting the petitioner. He also submits that the Mysore and Chamrajnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., upon statutory audit, had reported that there were no financial improprieties or illegalities including the illegalities alleged against the petitioner by respondent No. 2. He therefore submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted.

¶34

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the question whether there was any misappropriation or not is yet to be investigated by respondent No.1. He submits that in case the Mysore and Chamrajnagar District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. upon statutory audit, has submitted a report exonerating the petitioner, the investigating officer would consider the same during the course

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

of investigation. He however submits that the contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be taken into account to set at nought the investigation.

¶38

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent

¶39

and therefore this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶41

A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 shows that it is based on an internal audit report of the Mysore and Chamrajnagar District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., which implicated the petitioner and one Mr. Sriramappa Pujari of misappropriating a sum of Rs.13,75,92,487/-. It is specifically alleged that instead of transferring the said amount to the personal accounts of the members/farmers, the same was transferred to the private accounts of the petitioner and the said Mr. Sriramappa Pujari.

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18826 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Therefore, the least that could be done in the facts and circumstances of this case was an investigation by respondent No.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after statutory audit, the petitioner is given a clean chit, this shall also be considered by the investigating officer before finalising the final report.

¶45

In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the first information report registered against the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed off. However, the investigating officer shall consider the findings of the statutory audit, other relevant material and the communications of the society to the concerned statutory authorities, and thereafter conclude the investigation in accordance with law.

¶46

The Investigating Officer shall not effect any arrest until all such material is collected which justifies a custodial interrogation.

¶47

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

HJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Niranjan G S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan G S v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Ghouse Khan Vs State of Harihara

Mr.Sandeep Vishwanath Vs Mr.Anush Martio James

Naresh R. Punjabi Vs Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

Thomas Mathew Vs the State of Karnataka

Muninarayana B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh D S Vs State of Karnataka by