Mere Absence Of Accused Persons’ Name In Initial Complaint Doesn’t Absolve Them From Criminal Liability: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that mere absence of accused persons’ name in the initial complaint does not, by itself, absolve them of criminal liability.

The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR against the accused and the chargesheet for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz observed, “Mere absence of an accused persons name in the initial complaint does not, by itself, absolve them of criminal liability. An accused whose involvement surfaces during the course of investigation may subsequently be added to the charge sheet. This legal proposition is well settled. The petitioner's involvement emerged during investigation and therefore, he cannot claim protection solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.”

The Bench said that not arraigning some of the other persons named by the Complainant as accused in the charge sheet is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty H. represented the Petitioner while HCGP Rashmi Patel and Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A Complaint was lodged by the Assistant General Manager and Branch Head of the IDBI Bank Ltd., alleging misappropriation of funds by the accused No. 1 (Manager, IDBI Bank) based on which an FIR was registered. It was alleged that at the instance of the accused no. 1, who was earlier posted as Relationship Manager with Gandhinagar Branch, Bengaluru, certain unauthorized transfer of funds took place from the accounts of certain customers from March 2022 to December 2022. Further, some of the customers' accounts were debited for various amounts without their mandate and the fraudulent transactions occurred on various dates and the amounts so debited were transferred to other customers’ accounts of the Bank, amounting approximately Rs. 2.72 Crores.

It was further alleged that the accused no. 1 in writing confessed that she had booked LIC policies for some customers of the Bank by debiting the amounts from the accounts of other customers, without their authorization and submitted a hand written record of such unauthorized transactions, mentioning the names of such LIC policy holders etc. The Petitioner was arraigned as accused no. 4 in the chargesheet. He was not an employee of the Bank but an account holder since 2017. Hence, he sought quashing of the case before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Prosecution has collected materials to show that the petitioner has utilized the funds to purchase residential flats and a luxury vehicle. The acquisition of these properties, as per investigation, have been traced and verified as assets purchased using the defrauded funds.”

The Court remarked that at this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie case against the Petitioner or the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out and that it is not in dispute that the further investigation is pending.

“The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the further investigation is pending to verify the involvement of other persons in the fraudulent transactions. … The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that criminal proceedings involved in economic offences, having serious implications on the society should not be quashed at the threshold”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that where a non-public servant in collusion with public servants, is alleged to have committed offences causing wrongful loss to the public and wrongful gain to themselves, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried jointly with public servant.

“As per investigation, it was discovered that funds from various sources were credited to the petitioner's accounts, which was utilized by him to purchase movable and immovable properties”, it also noted.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to quash the case against the Petitioner.

Cause Title- Puneeth H.R. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:18388)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty H.

Respondents: HCGP Rashmi Patel, Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, Advocates Vinithra Srinivasan, and Varun Srinivasan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment