Karnataka High Court
Sri. Patibandla Anand Kumar A/O Late P P … vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2025
1 W.P.NO.103676/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
WRIT PETITION No.103676 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PATIBANDLA ANAND KUMAR
S/O LATE P. P. SASTRY
CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER OF
M/S. BLIP ALTERNATE DEBT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
# 191, 1ST FLOOR, KNB MANSION
DOUBLE ROAD, II-STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038
2. MS. POOJA C.
D/O C. SUBRAMANYAM
DIRECTOR OF
M/S. BLIP ALTERNATE DEBT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
#191, 1ST FLOOR, KNB MANSION
DOUBLE ROAD, IIND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI. KESHAV M. DATAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI CEN CRIME PS
NOW RREPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD - 580 011
2 W.P.NO.103676/2024
2. MR. RAGHAVENDRA K MELAGIRI
CEO OF M/S PRABHANJAN CREATIONS PVT. LTD.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O KRUSHNAMURTHI NO.93,
2ND FLOOR , 1ST BLOCK
3RD MAIN ROAD, RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. K.S. KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
18.06.2024 AND FIR BEARING CRIME NO.52/2024 DATED
18.06.2024 REGISTERED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR
THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 66-C AND 66-D OF THE
INFORMATION ACT AND SECTION 406, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465
AND 468 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY. B.
DEFREEZE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONERS/ M/S. BLIP
ALTERNATE DEBT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. BEARING ACCOUNT NO.
15791100000029 WITH PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, YELAHANKA
BRANCH AND ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 23960100005220 WITH
FEDERAL BANK, VIDYARANYAPURA BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER
NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M, R AND S RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3 W.P.NO.103676/2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2
have filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the
complaint dated 18.06.2024 and FIR in Cr.No.52/2024,
registered before respondent No.1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the
Information Act and Sections 406, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465
and 468 of I.P.C. They have also sought for an order
defreezing the bank account of M/S Blip Alternate Debt
Solutions Pvt. Ltd bearing A/c No.15791100000029 with
Punjab and Sind Bank, Yelahanka Branch and A/c
No.23960100005220 with Federal Bank, Vidyaranyapura
Branch and pass such orders as deemed fit.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have
contended that the complaint and FIR are false. The
4 W.P.NO.103676/2024
contents therein do not constitute any offence and as such
liable to be quashed. Perusal of the complaint would reveal
that the alleged transaction between respondent Nos.1 and
2 and the petitioners was with regard to the financial
facilities that was being provided by M/s Blip Alternate Debt
Solutions Pvt Ltd. ('BADSPL' for short) to the complainant,
which does not constitute any offence. The said transaction
is civil in nature and has been given a criminal angle by the
complainant with a malafide intention. The service
agreement dated 27.03.2024 executed by M/s Unity Small
Finance Bank ('USFB' for short) in favour of BADSPL reveal
that the BADSPL and the petitioners have capacity to
contract and disburse the amount in favour of respondent
No.2.
2.1 There are no specific allegations against the
petitioners. The allegations made in the complaint does not
constitute any offence and the intention of respondent No.2
appears to be seeking refund of the amount. The
allegations in the complaint does not attract the provisions
5 W.P.NO.103676/2024
of Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Act and
Sections 406, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465 and 468 of I.P.C.
The investigating officer has given requisition for freezing
the bank account of BADSPL, which requires strong
suspicion. Freezing of the account would amount to
affecting the life of petitioners in terms of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. There are no strong suspicious
circumstances to warrant the same.
3. Petitioners are professionals. The allegations
made in the complaint relates to monetary transaction
seeking credit facility by respondent No.2. It has given a
criminal angle. Respondent No.1 has not followed the
procedure mandated under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.
Petitioners are having good case on merits and hence the
petition.
4. In support of the case of the petitioners, learned
counsel representing them has relied upon the following
decisions:
6 W.P.NO.103676/2024
(i) Sardar Sing Vs. State of Haryana
(Sardar Sing)1
(ii) S.K.Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(S.K.Alagh)2
(iii) Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj & Anr.
(Sheila Sebastian)3
(iv) Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors.(Vijay Kumar Ghai)4
(v) Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors. (Mitesh Kumar)5
(vi) Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
(Sarabjit Kaur)6
(vii) Sachin Garg Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr.(Sachin Garg)7
(viii) Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr. (Lalit Chaturvedi)8
(ix) Sri.Nagulavancha Sridhar Rao & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka & Anr. (Nagulavancha
Sridhar)9
(x) M/s Patel Engineering Ltd & Anr. Vs. State
of Karnataka & Anr.(M/s Patel
10
Engineering)
1
(1977) 1 SCC 463
2
(2008) 5 SCC 662
3
(2018) 7 SCC 581
4
(2022) 7 SCC 124
5
(2022) 14 SCC 572
6
(2023) 5 SCC 360
7
2024 SCC Online SC 82
8
2024 SCC Online SC 171
9
W.P.No.22057/2021
7 W.P.NO.103676/2024
5. Learned HCGP submitted statement of objections
stating that the petition is not maintainable and respondent
No.1 - State strongly object for granting the reliefs sought
in the petition. No proper and reasonable grounds exists to
grant the relief. Respondent No.2/complainant is the CEO of
Prabhanjana Creations Pvt Ltd and President of
Prabhanjana Souharda Sahakari Sanga. In order to extend
the services of the organisation across Karnataka and to
open new branches in all the districts, respondent No.2
organisations were in need of funds. Accordingly, it
approached BADSPL represented by petitioners. They
assured to provide collateral free loan to respondent
No.2/company and verified the documents.
6. They assured granting collateral free loan of `35
Crores and furnished some forged documents and made a
fake agreement and got opened a Escrow account. Under
the head credit insurance, Legal Charges, Stamp Duty, Neo
10
Crl.P.No.6513/2024
8 W.P.NO.103676/2024
Capital Platform charges, NBFC License Charges and
Building Deposit Money for opening Society branches at
Malleshwaram and Jayanagar, Bengaluru, petitioners
collected `47,22,460 and cheated respondent No.2. After
realising that they have been cheated, respondent No.2
filed complaint. Based on it, case is registered and
investigation is taken up. One Viveka and Praveena, former
Directors of BADSPL have allotted shares with 5 lakhs in
the name of BADSPL without paying the amount of 5
lakhs shares to the company. The DIN number of petitioner
No.1 would expire soon and the company will be inactive as
per the Companies Act.
7. At the time of negotiation, petitioners promised
to provide a loan of `38 Crores from USFB and directed
respondent number 2 to furnish required document through
email. It further directed opening of Escrow account without
providing any sanction letter from the USFB. Believing the
words of petitioners, respondent No.2 has transferred a
total sum of `47,22,460 from the account of Prabhanjan
9 W.P.NO.103676/2024
creations Private Ltd to the account of BADSPL under the
heads - credit insurance, legal charges, stamp duty, new
capital platform charges. The investigation so far conducted
reveal that, petitioners are involved in the commission of
the offence directly.
7.1 The entire transaction between the parties are
through online. Several emails sent to respondent
No.2/company and Whatsapp messages clearly indicates
the intention of petitioners to cheat respondent No.2.
Petitioners are falsely claiming that respondent No.2 has
signed the alleged agreement. Petitioners have created
false documents. They have not at all submitted any
proposal to USFB for sanctioning loan and have not
provided any sanction letter. The petitioner have sent
duplicate documents to respondent number two through
email. It is learnt that the petitioners are habitually
involved in various criminal cases pending in different
courts. They have filed this petition concealing material
facts.
10 W.P.NO.103676/2024
7.2 Respondents have also collected amount under
the head building deposit, but on enquiry with the
concerned owners, it is revealed that they have not at all
contacted the building owners. There is prima facie case
made out against the petitioners. Misleading this Hon'ble
Court, they have secured stay order. Considering the
seriousness of the allegations made, the bank account of
petitioner is frozen. If the interim order is not vacated,
there would be every chance of petitioners getting the
accounts defreezed and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
9. The undisputed facts are that respondent
No.2/complainant is the CEO of Prabhanjan Creations
Private Ltd and President of Prabhanjan Souharda Sahakari
Sanga. In order to extend the services of the organisation
across Karnataka and to open new branches in all the
districts, respondent No.2 organisations were in need of
11 W.P.NO.103676/2024
funds. It is alleged that while browsing on the Internet,
respondent No.2 came across BADSPL represented by
petitioners, which projected itself as a Non-banking Finance
Corporation (NBFC). Across the table, the petitioners
promised to get a collateral free loan of `35 Crores from
USFB and collected a total sum of `47,22,460 under
different heads, including opening of Escrow Account and
also building deposit in the sum of `22,70,000 for opening
branches at Malleshwaram and Jayanagar Bengaluru.
10. Even though the petitioners did not show the
sanction letter from USFB, believing the words of
petitioners, respondent No.2 has credited the above
amount to various accounts as directed by the petitioners.
Respondent No.2 has also alleged that even though the
agreement is not executed, the petitioners are projecting as
though agreement is executed and have created fake
documents. On enquiry, respondent No.2 found that the
petitioners are habitually involved in such offences and
12 W.P.NO.103676/2024
therefore requested the petitioners to pay back the amount
and on their failure filed the complaint.
11. However, in the petition the petitioners have
claimed that BADSPL is not a non-banking Finance
Corporation or a Bank, but it is a debt capital service
provider. It takes finance from its member lending partners
who are banks, finance institutions and alternate debt
platforms. Petitioners have also produced service
agreement dated 27.03.2024 between USFB Ltd and
BADSPL where it is referred to as a business facilitator. As
per the terms of the agreement, it is required to furnish all
the information of the potential borrower to the Bank. It
shall refer the customers to the Bank in accordance with
the eligibility criteria provided by the Bank. It shall credit or
deposit in account designated for collections, all the money
that may be collected/received by it on behalf of the Bank
within the Bank prescribed days of collection.
13 W.P.NO.103676/2024
12. At the same time, the petitioners contended that
respondent No.2 did not have the requisite documents and
credit score to avail the finance assistance from the banking
institution and therefore it has approached BADSPL.
Annexure-F is the email received from USFB together with
copies of BF agreement and liability agreement with a
direction to get them signed and courier them to USFB. It is
addressed to petitioner No.1 with the copy to respondent
No.2. If the request of respondent No.2 for financial
assistance from USFB was not considered by the said Bank
and if BADSPL is not a NBFC or bank as pleaded in the
petition, then why the letter at Annexure-F would be
issued. Is it a document concocted by the petitioners as
alleged by respondent No.2?
13. Annexure D, which is the service agreement
between USFB and BADSPL is also contrary to the
contention of petitioners that BADSPL is not a NBFC.
Whether respondent No.2 had promised financial assistance
from USFB through BADSPL or there was a consensus
14 W.P.NO.103676/2024
between them to avail the financial facility from BADSPL
directly, is a matter to be investigated. At the same time ,
respondent No.2 has alleged that though petitioners have
collected a sum of `22,70,000 towards building deposit for
setting up branches at Malleshwaram and Jayanagar, the
same is not credited to the account of the building owners.
In fact, the building owners have expressed that the
petitioners have not approached them to rent out their
premises. All these aspects creates doubts as to the
bonafides of the petitioners.
14. There is specific allegation made by respondent
No.2 that petitioners have furnished forged documents and
got executed the agreement. There is also a specific
allegation that similar criminal cases are pending against
the petitioners. The investigation so far conducted reveal
that the petitioners have utilised the amount deposited by
respondent No.2 to the personal use. The investigating
officer has not found the office of petitioners at the given
address. Petitioner No.1 has absconded and his arrest and
15 W.P.NO.103676/2024
investigation is necessary. The allegations made against the
petitioners are very grave. It requires thorough
investigation and findings as to the complicity of petitioners
in the crime in question. Therefore, it is not a case for
quashing the criminal proceedings against them. The
decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the
above reasons this Court is of the considered opinion that
petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought in the
petition.
15. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly,
the following:
ORDER
Writ petition filed by the petitioners is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link