SHREESHA S. P. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this court to quash the FIR and further proceedings in Cr. No.37/2020 of Basavanagudi Police Station, investigated by CID for the offences punishable under section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 along with sections 406, 409, 420, 120B read with section 34 of IPC pending on the file of CCH-1 at Bengaluru.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.3, CEO of M/s Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha lodged the complaint making an allegation that a fraud and misrepresentation by customers in collusion with bank officials and particularly in the complaint dated 7.2.2020 mentioned the names of certain persons, i.e., Maiya has caused a loss of several crores to bank with the syndicate of few borrowers like Mr.Jaswanth Reddy at HBR Layout and other persons Ashok Reddy, Ranjith Reddy, M/s Megatex and Naveen D.P/Geetha Naveen and available documents produced along with the complaint discloses the involvement of several persons in committing the fraud and with the intention to safeguard their depositors, customers interest, complaint is lodged. Based on the complaint, police have registered a case for the above offences.

(3.) Petitioner S counsel would submit that on perusal of the entire complaint, nowhere the name of this petitioner is mentioned and this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.21 and when there is no any allegation against this petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel also would submit that the petitioner has kept a deposit of Rs.8 crores and he is only a creditor and there cannot be criminal prosecution against the creditor. Counsel also brought to the notice of the court page No.53, the sum and substance of the case, and this petitioner is implicated only on the ground that the amount has not been repaid and hence the implication of this petitioner is nothing but abuse of process and if the FIR is not quashed in respect of this petitioner it amounts to an abuse of process.