Karnataka High Court
Shri Ramachandra G B vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46856
CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10473 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMACHANDRA G.B.
S/O. BHARMAPPA G.
AGE 54 YEARS
OCC: BANKER
R/O. SRINIKHETANA, NO.4
MURUMANEHALLI HALLI ROAD KOTE
CHIKMAGALURU-577 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALLOLI SHIVRAJ SIDDARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JAVAGAL POLICE STATION
Digitally TQ: ARASIKERE, DIST: HASSAN-573 125
signed by
LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED THROUGH
Location: THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court
of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SHRI WAIKHOM LOYANGOMBA
AGE 36 YEARS
OCC: MANAGER SBI JAVAGAL
OFFICE ADDRESS: SBI JAVAGAL BRANCH
JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE
TALUKA AND DISTRICT HASSAN-573 125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1; SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) -2- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.874/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, ARSIKERE ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.89/2019 OF JAVAGAL POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 409 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1/ State, learned counsel for respondent no.2 /First Informant and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal petition is filed by petitioner/ accused no.2 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.874/2021 pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, arising out of Crime No.0089/2019 registered by Javagal Police Station, for -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. On the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Waikhom Loyangomba, Manager of State Bank of India, Javagal Branch, an FIR came to be registered on 02.08.2019 against Accused No.1 - Former Bank Manager, and Accused No.2 - petitioner, working as Chief Associate in the said branch.
4. Charge sheet is filed against both the accused for offence punishable under section 409 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC .
5. The case of the prosecution is that one late Sadashiva Pillai of Javagal Village had deposited his gold ornaments in the locker facility of Javagal branch of State Bank of India. The customer had kept two separate packets of gold ornaments in the locker. On verification, it was found that one of the packets containing gold ornaments weighing about 63.00 grams of a gold chain, 107.30 grams of four gold bangles, and 10.30 grams of gold ear studs (two pairs), -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR totaling 180.60 grams, was missing from the locker. The locker in question could be opened only by using two separate keys--one held by the Bank Manager and the other by the Chief Associate. At the relevant time, Accused No.1, Branch Manager, and Accused No.2/petitioner, Chief Associate, were in charge of the locker keys. The locker could only be operated jointly in the presence of both key holders. During inspection on 23.07.2019, when the locker was checked, the gold ornaments weighing 180.60 grams were found missing. When accused Nos.1 and 2 were questioned, they failed to provide any satisfactory explanation. Therefore, it is alleged that both of them had misused their official position and dishonestly committed criminal breach of trust and cheating in respect of the said gold ornaments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner are wholly misconceived and amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner, who was serving as Chief Associate in the concerned branch, has been falsely implicated merely to shield the systemic lapses and administrative negligence of higher officials of the bank. The complaint and the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC, as there is no material to establish entrustment of the alleged missing gold ornaments to the petitioner or any dishonest inducement on his part. It is further contended that the FIR is vitiated by unexplained delay, and that the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave during the relevant period, thereby negating the possibility of his involvement in the alleged acts.
7. It is further contended that contemporaneous documentary evidence, including the In and Out Register and CCTV footage dated 01.07.2019, which was produced during departmental enquiry, clearly exonerate the petitioner, as the footage does not depict him handling or removing the missing ornaments. However, such exculpatory material has -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR been suppressed by the prosecution. The selective implication of the petitioner and the then Branch Manager, while omitting other responsible officials, is alleged to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, and continuation thereof would amount to harassment and abuse of process of the Court. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned proceedings be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments; the relevant paras are extracted:
i) S.W.Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2002 1 SCC 241.
"8. ................... Every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.
9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by
(ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
26. In the second case also, this Court has expressed that:
(SCC p. 272, para 2) "2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 CrPC to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. ... In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law."
Even from this case also, it is clear that if no offence is made out from the allegations made in the complaint, there should be no hesitation in exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to pass appropriate order."
ii) HDFC Bank Limited v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 807.
"20. For bringing out the offence under the ambit of Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients:
(a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception;
(b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest;
and
(c) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement.
21. The appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a question of mens rea does not arise. However, even reading the FIR and the complaint at their face value, there -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR is nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. As such, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC would not be available.
22. Insofar as the provisions of Section 409 IPC is concerned, the following ingredients will have to be made out:
(a) That there has been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.;
(b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property.
23. For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property."
iii) Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 614.
"9. The FIR has been registered under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The scope and expanse of these sections is better appreciated in the company of sections 405 and 415 of the IPC. This court in the case of Radheyshyam v. State
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR of Rajasthan, culled out the following ingredients to constitute the criminal breach of trust:
"11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the following ingredients must exist:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract.
9.1 This court, while discussing the expression "entrustment" in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, observed that it carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance, all its imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit."
iv) Bhim Sain Arora & Ors. v. State in
Crl.M.C.1186/2023 & Crl.M.A.4551/2023 DD
27.08.2025.
"41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.
42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence ie the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept.
43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously."
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the materials collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses and documentary records of the branch, clearly disclose prima facie involvement of the petitioner along with Accused No.1 in the misappropriation of the gold ornaments kept in the locker by the customer. It is submitted that both the accused were the joint custodians of the locker keys, and the missing of the ornaments could not have occurred
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR without their knowledge or participation. The contentions of the petitioner regarding lack of entrustment, medical leave, or alleged suppression of CCTV footage are matters of defence which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the charge sheet contains specific and detailed allegations supported by material evidence, and therefore, the disputed questions of fact require full-fledged trial. It is argued that at this nascent stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the sufficiency of evidence, and that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ first informant, has filed statement of objections opposing the petition. It is contended that the petitioner, while serving as Chief Associate at the State Bank of India, Javagal Branch, between 18.06.2018 and 24.07.2019, had failed to adhere to the joint custody protocol governing the operation of the strong room and gold safe. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner had entered the strong room and operated the gold
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR safe on 01.07.2019, contrary to the prescribed procedure, and had surreptitiously removed a packet containing gold ornaments pledged by one late Sadashiva Pillai. It is further stated that the petitioner had subsequently admitted his act in writing before the internal investigating officer, and that on account of his misconduct, the Bank was compelled to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased borrower to the extent of ₹7.74 lakhs.
11. It is further contended that an internal investigation was conducted by the Bank, during which the petitioner, in the presence of the Regional Manager and Chief Manager of the Regional Business Office, Chickmagalur, gave a written statement dated 31.07.2019 admitting that he had taken the said ornaments from the locker and misplaced them. The enquiry report categorically concluded that the petitioner had violated the joint custody norms with a fraudulent intent. Based on the said findings, departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge sheet dated 26.02.2020, and upon full-fledged enquiry, the Enquiry
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR Officer held the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct resulting in financial loss to the Bank. The disciplinary authority, concurring with the findings, imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice by order dated 25.02.2021. It is submitted that the CCTV footage corroborates the petitioner's single-handed operation of the gold safe on 01.07.2019, and therefore, the allegations of false implication or mala fides are wholly untenable. Accordingly, respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the petition.
12. The complaint averments are that one Late Sadashiva Pillai, resident of Javagal Village, had availed locker facility at the State Bank of India, Javagal Branch, wherein he had kept certain gold ornaments in two separate packets. Upon verification conducted on 23.07.2019, one of the packets containing gold ornaments weighing about 180.60 grams was found missing. The said locker could be operated only by using two keys-- one retained by the Branch Manager and the other by the Chief Associate. At the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR relevant point of time, Accused No.1 was functioning as the Branch Manager, and Accused No.2 / petitioner, Chief Associate, were the joint custodians of the said keys. On being questioned, both of them failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the missing ornaments. It is, therefore, alleged that they have misused their official position and committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.
13. The allegations made in the complaint and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The specific allegations against the Petitioner indicate that while discharging his duties as Chief Associate, he had unauthorisedly operated the gold safe in the Bank's strong room single-handedly, contrary to the prescribed joint custody procedure, resulting in misappropriation of gold ornaments pledged by the customers. It is not disputed that in the departmental enquiry, petitioner has been found guilty of serious misconduct. The contentions raised by the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR Petitioner relate to factual aspects touching upon the merits of the case which are matters for trial. At this stage, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet. The settled law is that where the allegations in the FIR or charge sheet disclose the commission of an offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the accused has a defence available which requires appreciation of evidence.
14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the well-settled parameters governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held that interference at the nascent stage of prosecution should be in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fides. The present case does not fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said decision.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, the Supreme Court observed:
"While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not to act as if it were conducting a trial or inquiry. Whether the allegations are true or false is a matter to be tested during trial and not in a petition seeking quashing."
16. In the case of State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Ors., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 703, has held that:
"8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when after a thorough investigation the charge- sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482CrPC the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46856 CRL.P No. 10473 of 2025 HC-KAR mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 CrPC are very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court."
17. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the opinion that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and the allegations are supported by documentary evidence including the internal investigation report etc. These aspects require adjudication during trial and cannot be summarily discarded at this stage.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
Observations are confined to the petition.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1