- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3757 WP No. 12222 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12222 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: NKGSB CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.25, NEHRU ROAD, KAMMANAHALLI, HRBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 084, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MR.PRAVIN SUBHASCHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANASAWADI P.S, BANASAWADI BANGALORE-560 043. 2. SRI. MUNDLURU DHARMA TEJA, S/O.DEVARAJULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AT-1-52, A.G. GARIPALLE, ANANTHA GURRAPPA GARI PALLI, CHITOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1, SRI.AVINASH P, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.0155/2024 DTD. 29.02.2024 BEFORE THE BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, AS PER ANNX-A AND AS PER PETITIONER CONCERN. ALLOW THIS PETITION, BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.0155/2024 BEFORE HONBLE XITH A.C.M.M, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND AS PER PETITIONER CONCERN AND ETC., Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3757 WP No. 12222 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Quash the F.I.R. No.155/2024 dated 29.02.2024, before the Banaswadi Police Station, as per Annexure-A and as per the petitioner concerned. b. Allow this Petition, by quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.155/2024 before Hon’ble XI ACMM, Bangalore, as per Annexure-A, in the ends of justice and equity and as per petitioner concern. c. Grant such other interim relief as this Hon’ble Court deems to fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity and as per petitioner concern.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is a multi state schedule co-operative Bank. In the year, 2021, respondent No.2 – complainant along with one Pavan Sai Rohith, Lakshmi N.S. and Inampudi Srinivasa are said to have - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3757 WP No. 12222 of 2024 obtained a loan from the petitioner – Bank. It is alleged that due to default said to have been committed by the aforesaid persons in relation to the said loan towards which respondent No.2 – complainant stood as a guarantor, the petitioner – Bank issued notice dated 18.04.2023 to all the aforesaid persons including respondent No.2 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”). It is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequently on 29.02.2024, instead of repayment of loan due to the petitioner-accused No.4- Bank, respondent No.2 filed the instant false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner – accused No.4 and the aforesaid three persons – accused Nos.1 to 3 falsely alleging that the petitioner was guilty of the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.155/2024 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3757 WP No. 12222 of 2024 5. A perusal of the impugned complaint and FIR will clearly indicate that all the allegations made by respondent No.2- complainant are primarily/mainly against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against the petitioner herein – accused No.4 against whom vague, bald and omnibus allegations are made by respondent No.2; it is an undisputed fact that petitioner being a bank had issued a notice dated 18.04.2023 itself under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, against the borrowers and respondent No.2 – guarantor, thereby indicating that the impugned complaint given as late as on 29.02.2024 i.e., after more than 10 months, is clearly a counter-blast to the said notice issued by the petitioner to respondent No.2. It is therefore clear that apart from the fact that the contents of the complaint and FIR, even if taken at face value, do not make out commission of any offence by the petitioner, the conduct of respondent No.2 in filing the impugned complaint after more than 10 months of the petitioner issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be incriminated for the alleged offences and as such, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3757 WP No. 12222 of 2024 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.155/2024 registered by respondent No.1-Police, pending on the file of the XI ACMM, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RR/BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35