- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10902 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. N S JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE N. SUBBARAYA, # X-174, SOMWARPET TOWN, M.D. BLOCK, SOMWARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. 2. SMT. VANITA P W/O N.S JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, # X-174, MAHADESHWARA BLOCK, SOMWARPET TOWN, SOMWARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARTHIK.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOMWARPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 2. K.M IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE K.A MOHAMMED, PWD CONTRACTOR, R/A HOUSE NO. 108 HOUSING BOARD FRONT, 4TH WARD, KUSHALANAGAR-571234. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.M.H.HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.125/2023 DATED 01.08.2023 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT SOMWARPET POLICE STATION PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.08.2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, SOMWARAPET, KODAGU DIST., FOR THE OFFENCE 465, 471, 420 AND 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.125/2023 of respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 No.1 PS for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, petitioners have contended that they are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have been falsely implicated. The security deposit and subject of dispute is legally registered in their names. They have right to claim the deposit and withdraw it. The complainant is not having any legal rights over the deposit. He is illegally trying to withdraw the same. The allegations made in the FIR taken on the face value constitute a civil dispute. The legal course available to the complainant is to file a civil suit. Petitioners have followed the legal procedure when withdrawing the security deposit. Without any application of mind the concerned police included the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. There is a criminal case pending against the complainant for the punishable under Section 138 of NI Act regarding the cheque bounce and judgment is awaited. To exert - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 pressure on the petitioners this complaint is filed. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that complainant is a PWD contractor. He is doing Civil contracting work since 25 years at PWD and Zilla Panchayat engineering division in different places of Kodugu district. As there was some problem, since 2013 he applied for tender in the name of accused No.1 Jayaram and his wife i.e., accused No.2 Vanitha and secured sub-contract for a sum of Rs.5,95,00,000/-. Out of said amount, 40% was invested by accused Nos.1 and 2 and 60% invested by him. He also kept Rs.48,00,000/- by way of security deposit in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2. The work was to be executed within a period of one year. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 4. Accordingly, he has executed the work and final bill is also settled. When he requested for release of security deposit of Rs.48,00,000/- he was directed to approach the office of Rural Development Water Supply. When he approached the said office and enquired with the case worker, he was told that accused Nos.1 and 2 already availed work completion certificate and now why he is insisting. On suspicion, on 01.06.2023 he enquired with Somawarpeth Chowdlu branch about the certificate and came to know that within two months accused Nos.1 and 2 have returned the certificate and got the money transferred to their accounts. When complainant checked with the bank, he realised that security deposit certificate produced by accused Nos.1 and 2 is not the original but a colour zerox. 4.1. It is further submitted that the period of execution of the work is one year. Only after execution of the work and settlement of the final bill, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 Superintending Engineer would address letter to the Executing Engineer to release the security deposit. Only on the basis of such letter, the Executive Engineer would order for release of amount. The bank has not received any such letter. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have produced a colour xerox of the original certificate to the office of Rural Development Water Supply and got the amount released to their accounts and thereby caused loss to the Government and also to the complainant and hence the complaint. 4.2 Based on the complainant case is registered against the petitioners and investigation is taken up. The allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are very serious. Matter required a full fledged trial to unravel the truth and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that complainant is a civil contractor. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 2 are also civil contractors. Complainant has claimed that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 due to some problem, complainant could not apply for contract in his name and therefore, during 2013 he applied for tender in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 for a work worth Rs.5,95,00,000/-. The said work was executed for which accused Nos.1 and 2 invested 40% and complainant invested 60%. It is specifically contended by the complainant that for execution for the said work he deposited Rs.48 lakhs by way of security deposit, which was to be withdrawn only after execution of the work. 7. After execution of the work, when he tried to get the security deposit, he came to know that already accused Nos.1 and 2 got released the security deposit on the basis of colour xerox copy of the security deposit certificate and thereby accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. These specific allegations made against the accused persons are required to be investigated and truth of the same is to be unraveled. It requires a full fledged investigation by the concerned police. In the light - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37264 CRL.P No. 10902 of 2023 of the prima facie case made out against accused Nos.1 and 2 the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and as such this petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly the following; ORDER Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32