1
Reserved on : 19.08.2025 Pronounced on : 01.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01STDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.SATYANARAYANA VARMA
S/O G.VENKAT RAJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.G2
S.R.AVENUE, BRINDAVAN COLONY
HYDER NAGAR, KUKATPALLY
HYDERABAD - 500 072.
(PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ASHWIN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CID/HIGH GROUNDS POLICE
BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
R
1
2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU - 560 100.
3. KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI
PARISHISTA PANGADAGALA ABHIVRUDDI NIGAMA
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.06.2025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 118/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT), BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-C) ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 118/2024
DATED 28.05.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE CHARGE SHEET
DATED 05.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 OF THE IPC AND SECTION 13(1), R/W
13(2) OF THE PC ACT, 1988 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (528 of BNSS), seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No.118 of 2024 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru and consequent filing of the charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
2.1. The 3rdrespondent/Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama represented by its General Manager is the complainant. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the charge sheet so filed in Crime No.118 of 2024. The brief history to the arraigning of the petitioner as accused No.1 is germane to be noticed. On 19-02-2024, an account comes to be
3
opened in Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch ('the Bank' for short) in the name of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishishta Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited ('the Corporation' for short). Immediately after opening of the account, on various dates from 04-03-2024 to 21-05-2024 amount totaling to ₹187.33 crores is deposited and transferred into the account of the Corporation by 5 transactions in total i.e., ₹25/- crores on 4-03- 2024; ₹25/- crores on 6-03-2024; ₹44/- crores on 21-03-2024; ₹33/- crores on 22-03-2024; ₹50/- crores on 21-05-2024. Between 5-03-2024 and 6-05-2024, 18 transfers are made to various accounts held by business entities totaling to ₹94,73,08,500/-.
2.2. On 23-05-2024, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation questions the officers of the Bank about transfers. On questioning,the transfer of ₹5/- crores was immediately restored into the account of the Corporation. Noticing some serious foul play, a complaint comes to be registered by the Corporation before the High Grounds Police Station alleging gross irregularities and misappropriation inter alia, by the employees of the Bank. On 28-05-2024, the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.118 of
4
2024 against 6 officials of the Bank. Several persons who were not named in the crime were taken into custody on 31-05-2024. On 11-06-2024, the Investigating Officer noticing the fact that certain amounts have emanated or dropped into the account of the petitioner, approached the house of the petitioner at 11.30 p.m. at Hyderabad and takes him into custody by undertaking search of the house, on search and seizure warrant. About ₹8/- crores of cash was found in the house, apart from several kilograms of gold. ₹8/- crores of cash was counted throughout the night in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was produced before the 13th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad seeking transit warrant to bring him to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru.
2.3. The learned Magistrate returns the request for transit warrant, since the petitioner was not named in the FIR. On 12-06-2024 when the transit warrant was returned, the Officers of Crime Investigation Department ('CID') bring the petitioner back to Bengaluru by road. On bringing him back to Bengaluru he was taken to medical checkup. After medical checkup he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate who orders him to be taken to
5
police custody. The petitioner, on being taken into police custody, approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.14252 of 2025 calling in question his arrest on 11-06-2024 as illegal and consequently seeking release of the petitioner from judicial custody then. As a ground thereof, the remand order dated 26-06-2024 was sought to be quashed. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 12-06-2025 dismissed the petition. The dismissal of the petition has become final. A week after dismissal of the petition, the subject petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the entire proceedings inter alia, seeking the relief that was already sought in the aforesaid petition.
4. Heard Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Rajesh Mahale appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that he has conspired with Accused Nos.2,
6
11 and 12. The allegations against the petitioner are completely omnibus. There is no amount that is credited into the account of the petitioner nor taken out of his account. The allegation is that about ₹90/- crores is fraudulently transferred to accounts opened in the names of fictitious business entities to which the petitioner has helped. The further allegation is that the petitioner has received part of the money through accused No.3 in the form of cash and gold,while the allegation is hugely of conspiracy. There is no direct allegation against the petitioner. These are the submissions in support of seeking quashment of proceedings.
5.1. In support of the release of the petitioner from prison where he is for the last 14 months, the jurisdictional Magistrate has declined to grant transit warrant. When the transit warrant was declined, close to 48 hours the petitioner was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bangalore. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner become illegal. He would also contend that the petitioner was neither provided with grounds of arrest nor the prosecution had a transit warrant to transport the petitioner to Bengaluru from Hyderabad. On all these grounds, the learned
7
senior counsel seeks quashment of proceedings or to hold the arrest as illegal and consequently release him on grant of bail forthwith.
6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would take this Court through the objections filed countering every one of the submissions. It is the contention of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the house of the petitioner was searched at 11.30 p.m. on 11-06-2024. Search yielded ₹8/- crores in cash and several kilograms of gold and counting of cash took about 8 hours. The petitioner was then immediately produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate who returned the transit warrant on the ground that the petitioner was not named as an accused. The prosecution had no choice. They had to carry ₹8/- crores cash back to Bengaluru along with the petitioner. The travel took ten hours by road. The moment they landed in Bengaluru, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and after medical examination produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate who ordered police custody of the petitioner.
8
6.1. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet and now the petitioner is accused No.1, the key conspirator of largescale misappropriation of funds of the Corporation which runs to the tune of ₹188/- crores. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner has urged these very grounds before the coordinate Bench in the aforenoted writ petition which comes to be dismissed. The dismissal of it has become final. Now on the ground of alleged illegal arrest and non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, the petitioner is again before this Court. He would submit that the second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., without any change in circumstance, is not maintainable nor entertainable. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that it is settled principle of law that grounds that were not urged in the earlier petition cannot become grounds in the subsequent petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. In all, he would seek dismissal of the petition.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
7. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel, lent support to the submissions of the State, contending that the public exchequer
9
and the scheduleted tribes have been dealt a grievous blow. The learned senior counsel submits that the offences are so grave, conspiracy writ large would necessarily demand a full trial and not premature termination of proceedings.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would join issue in contending that what was challenged in the earlier petition was only to declare the arrest of the petitioner on 11-06-2024 as illegal on several grounds raised therein. Now the entire criminal proceedings is sought to be quashed. Therefore, the second petition with the quashment prayer is undoubtedly maintainable.
9. Both the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor have relied on certain judgments in support of their respective contentions, all of which would bear consideration in the course of the order qua their relevance.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
10
material on record. In furtherance whereof, the following issues arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether a second petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available while filing the first petition would be maintainable?
(ii) If maintainable, whether the arrest of the petitioner could be held to be illegal, resulting in his release from custody?
(iii) Whether interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (482 of the Cr.P.C.) is warranted?
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES:
Issue No.1:
(i) Whether a second petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available while filing the first petition would be maintainable?
11
Brief facts towards consideration of the issue:
11. The link in the chain of events are required to be iterated. A huge alleged scam to the tune of ₹188/- crores blue up pursuant to a complaint registered on 28-05-2024 which becomes a crime in Crime No.118 of 2024. A little history to the registration of crime is that, a newly opened account in the Bank in the name of the Corporation gets deposits of ₹188/- crores by 5 transactions and by 18 transactions it is transferred to various business entities. The moneies had to be dispensed to the poor, as it was a Corporation for development of members of Scheduled Tribes. The poor does not get the money, it goes nowhere near those beneficiaries, but gets into fictitious accounts. This serious foul play is noticed by the Corporation itself. This triggered registration of the complaint by the Corporation. The complaint so made on 28-05-2024 before the High Grounds Police Station reads as follows:
"To, Date: 28th May 2024 Station House Officer, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru
12
Subject: Complaint against Ms. A. Manimekhalai, MD & CEO, Union Bank of India, Sri. Nitesh Ranjan, Sri. Ramasubramanium, Shri. Sanjay Rudra, Shri. Pankaj Dwivedi, the Executive Directors, Mrs. Suchishitha Raul, Chief Manager of Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru, and other involved parties
Dear Sir,
I am writing on behalf of Karnataka Maharishi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama (KMVSTDCL), a government organization having its registered office at No. 10, 3rdFloor, Khadi Bhavan, Jasma Devi Bhavan Road, Bangalore 560052. As the General Manager, I am lodging a formal complaint regarding severe fraudulent activities involving the top management of Union Bank of India officials/employees of Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru, and other third parties, which have caused substantial financial and reputational damage to our organization.
On 19th February 2024, KMVSTDCL ("Organisation") transferred its account from Union Bank of India, Vasanthnagar branch to Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bangalore (Account No. 520141001659653, the account, named "MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA
MAHARISHI VALMIKI SCHEDULE TRIBES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BENGALURU,"
was to be jointly operated by the Managing Director and the Accounts Officer, as per the signatures procured by the concerned bank officials on 26th February 2024. The account received several significant deposits as follows:
1. Rs. 25 crore on 4th March 2024
2. Rs. 25 crore on 6th March 2024
3. Rs. 44 crore on 21st March 2024
4. Rs. 43.33 crore on 22nd March 2024
5. Rs. 50 crore on 21st May 2024 These deposits, totalling Rs. 187.33 crore, were made from various banks and the State Huzur Treasury Khajane-ll into
13
our Savings Bank account No.520141001659653 at Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bangalore. Due to the election code of conduct, our office did not communicate with Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch. Consequently, the bank failed to send the new passbook and cheque book to our registered address. Our officials visited the branch on 21st May 2024 to collect these documents but were refused by the branch officer, who later visited our office on 22nd May 2024 claiming the documents were already issued which was found to be untrue.
Further perusal it revealed numerous forged letters, forged cheques, and forged RTGS requests with fake signatures of the officers and Accounts Officer, forged/fake board resolution leading to unauthorized disbursements of funds from the organisation's bank account. Upon verification of the passbook in detail an amount of Rs. 94,73,08,500/- has been disbursed to various accounts by Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru, based on the forged documents.
These forged include:
a. An authorization letter dated 4th March 2024 authorizing Mr. Shiva Kumar Junior Accounts Officer, to manage the account who is unknow to our organisation (Document No. 1).
b. A letter dated 4th March 2024 falsely indicating receipt of the cheque book by our organization (Document No. 2).
c. Copies of RTGS request letters and cheque copies showing printed signatures of managing Director and Account officer (Document No. 31) d. Additionally, a fake/forged board resolution dated 30th March 2024 was created to deposit Rs. 50 crore in a fixed deposit and secure an overdraft facility against it (Document No. 4). This resolution and related documents bear forged signatures and were used to transfer Rs.
14
40.10 crore to various accounts on the same day (Document No. 5).
The copies of the bank statement dated 30th March 2024 to 24th May 2024 clearly reflect such transaction is enclosed (Document no.6)
The involved bank officials have not addressed any emails to our registered email ID i.e.,______despite it being clearly stated on our original letterhead. Additionally, the official phone number of the Managing Director has not been recorded by the bankers, in view of the same our office has not been informed of any of the transactions. The top management of Union Bank of India, Mrs. Suchishitha Raul, Chief Manager have failed to address these illegalities and have continued acting is such illegal manner being fully aware of such fraudulent acts being carried out by the branch officials and other third party/ies, wherein there is evident failure in following the banking procedure. Further the bank itself has failed to take the precautionary measures with respect to the that funds are being held in their bank, the top management of Union Bank of India is to held liable for the several lapse that have transpired in the Bank. Further upon being made aware of these acts, one of the employees of our organisation i.e. Sri. Chandrashekar P, who was working as the Account Superintendent in our organisation was involved in coordinating for necessary documents (bank confirmation letters, Cheque book, RTGS letters, bank statements etc.,) to be procured and to be handed over to the bankers from the organisation, committed suicide by naming the Managing Director, Accounts officer and the Chief manager in the suicide note. It is pertinent to note that the concerned officer i.e., Sri Chandrashekhar P was involved in sending out bank confirmation letter to various banks where our organisation has held the accounts to assert the bank balance had failed to send out the letters to Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch Bengaluru every month to ascertain the monthly balance.
15
Upon discovery of these fraudulent activities, our organisation took immediate steps:
a. On 23rd May 2024 we addressed a letter to the Chief Manager highlighting the various illegalities that had transpired in their bank, immediately a sum of Rs.5 Crore was deposited into our account which came to be informed to us by the bank officials on the same date we requested into provide the banks CCTV footage of the bank, which has not been received till data. (Document no.7)
b. On 27th May 2024, we addressed a letter to the Deputy General Manager (East) Union Bank of India, Bengaluru to ensure all the amounts are redeposited into our account immediately. (Document no.8)
Further the bank itself has failed to take the precautionary measures while the funds are being held in their bank and the top management of Union Bank of India is to held liable for the several lapse that have transpired in their banking system. Wherein they have failed to verify the account details, the signatures on the cheques, the same amounts to sheer lapses on part of Union Bank of India before the funds are disbursed from the account held in Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru, The ongoing fraudulent activities and oversight indicate a systemic failure within the Union Bank of India, necessitating a comprehensive investigation into the involvement and negligence of the top management which includes the Managing Director, Chief Executive Office and Executive Directors of Union Bank of India, namely i.e., Ms. A.Manimekhalai, MD & CEO, Union Bank of India. Sri. Nitesh Ranjan, Sri Ramasubramanium, Shri. Sanjay Rudra, Shri. Pankaj Dwivedi, the Executive Directors.
It is appalling to the organisation to be made aware of such illegal acts at such related stage, that without the physical presence of any of the officers of the organisation, without physical verification with the Managing Director of the Accounts officers such huge
16
loans amounts and overdrafts facility have been created by a nationalised bank. Given the blatant illegal acts committed by the top management bank officials, we request immediate action against Ms. A. Manimekhalal MD & CEO Union Bank of India Sri NItesh Ranjan, Sri Ramasubramanium, Sri Sanjay Rudra, Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, the Executive Directors, Mrs. Suchishitha Raul, the Chief Manager of Union Bank of India. MG road Branch, Bengaluru and other involved parties.
We urge you to conduct a thorough investigation, hold the responsible top management of Union Bank of India, officers at the Union Bank of India, MG Road Branch accountable, and initiate legal proceedings under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 420 against the top management, bank officials for adopting fraudulent means to induce unauthorised transfer and disbursement of funds and causing loss to the government by failing to follow the banking norms. section 467 for creating forged documents, including authorization letters and boards resolution, forgery of valuable security, section 468 for creating documents with the intention to deceive and cheat our organisation and leading to significant financial loss. section 471 since the bank officials used forged documents as genuine, knowing them to be false, Section 409 for committing criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the funds and other provisions of law."
(Emphasis added)
The concatenation of events discloses a conspiracy of staggering proportions. The complaint supra narrates how funds meant for the amelioration of the scheduled tribes were siphoned off into shadowy accounts. Most of the people
17
who are now drawn as accused were not drawn as accused at that time. The accused were only 6 people who are officials of the Bank. Pursuant to registration of crime, the Police began to conduct investigation. The conduct of investigation leads to several arrests being made who were not named in the FIR. One such person was the petitioner. It is here the petitioner is brought into the vortex of crime. The petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad. The Crime Investigation Department armed with a search and seizure warrant, search the residence of the petitioner at Hyderabad, in a nocturnal operation stretching into dawn. The sleuths unearthed an astonishing Rs.8 crores in cash and about 15 kilograms of gold. Immediately after completion of counting, the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking of a transit warrant. On the ground that the petitioner is not an accused, the transit warrant so sought at the hands of the jurisdictional Magistrate at Hyderabad comes to returned. The prosecution had no choice but to travel to jurisdictional Court at Bengaluru and take further steps in the matter. They travelled all night to come to Bengaluru, under took medical examination of the petitioner as is required in law and
18
produced him before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The jurisdictional Magistrate grants police custody on 12-06-2024.
12. The police conduct investigation, draw the petitioner as accused No.1 and file a charge sheet against several persons. The allegation against the petitioner runs into 10 pages. It reads as follows:
"ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ಆ ೋಗಳ ರುದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ ೋಪಗಳನು ೊ ಸಾ !ೆ.
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ )ಾ* ಾಜು ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ವ'ಾ( @
ಲ-./ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ ಈತನು ಮೂಲತಃ 2ೆಲಂ)ಾಣ ಾಜ#ದ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5ನವ$ಾ ದು, ಈತನು 4ೆಂಗಳ6 )ೆ *$ಾಂಕ. 12.10.2023 ಮತು7 15.10.2023. 16.10.2023 ಂದ 18.10.2023 ವ ೆ)ೆ 8ೇ9 :ೕ; 'ಾನ#2ಾ <ೆ= >ಾ=( ಸ?ೕಪದ ೋ<ೆ@ ಾಯ@ ಏB ಬೂ#<ೆ= ೋ<ೆ@ನ
ಉEದುೊಂಡು ನಂತರದ
*ನಗಳ
Fದೇ ಪ ಚಯ ದ ಆಂಧಪ!ೇಶದ ಗುಂಟೂರು ನಗರದ ಆ ೋ-2 ಾK Lೕ:MಾB ಾN ರವರು Mಾಸ ರುವ 4ೆಂಗಳ6 ನ ಮ$ೆಯ
ಉEದುೊಳOPQ7ದು, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು
ನಗರದ
ತನ)ೆ ಹಲMಾರು ವಷ(ಗEಂದ ಪ ಚಯ ದ ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಆತನ 8ಾವ$ಾದ ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾVನನು ಸಂಪಕ( Wಾ*X ಅ ಂದ
ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ಅ]ವೃ* :ಗಮದ 'ಾ#$ೇ_ಂ` aೈ ೆಕ\b ಮತು7 ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾdನನು ಸಂಪK(X, ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ಅ]ವೃ*e :ಗಮೆU ಸಂಬಂfXದ 4ಾ#ಂ= gಾ2ೆಗಳ
ಇರುವ ಹಣವನು
ಲಪ<ಾiಸುವ ಬ)ೆj ಅಪ ಾfಕ ಒಳ ಸಂಚು ನaೆX. ಸು'ಾರು ವಷ(ಗEಂದ ಪ ಚಯ ದ ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl ಮುgಾಂತರ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 pಾgೆ, 'ಾ#$ೇಜbರವರನು ಪ ಚಯ 'ಾ;ೊಂ;ದು, ಅವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ಅ]ವೃ* :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
:ಗಮದ ಎಂ.;., ಆ ೋ-5
ಪದc$ಾqgÀವರ ಮೂಲಕ ವಸಂತನಗರ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ pಾgೆiಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXೊಂಡು ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 4ಾ#ಂ= ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ pಾgೆಯ
19
gಾ2ೆಯನು 2ೆ ೆXದು, ಸದ :ಗಮದ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ Wೇ ದ ಹಣ ರೂ. 89,62,99,500/- ನು ವಂಚ$ೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ನಕ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಗಳ !ಾಖಾQಗಳನು :ೕ; gಾ2ೆಗಳನು 2ೆ ೆದು, ಸದ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಜ¸Áä!ೇ ಭವನದ
ರುವ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K
ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ಅ]ವೃ* :ಗಮದ ಕvೇ ಮತು7 ಇತ ೆ ಸrಳಗಳ ಮತು7 ಪರಸwರ ದೂರMಾx
ಮತು7 Wಾ'ಾ_ಕ 2ಾಣಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ :ರಂತರ ಸಂಪಕ(ದ
ದು ಒಳ ಸಂಚು ರೂXರು2ಾ7 ೆ.
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ ಈ Fದೇ ಪ ಚಯ ದ ಆ ೋ-2 ಾK Lೕ:MಾBನ zೊ2ೆ Wೇ ತನ ಸಹಚರ$ಾದ ಆ ೋ-4 Wಾi 2ೇಜ !ೇವರಪ
ಎಂಬುದನು ಮ ೆ'ಾ{ Lವಕು'ಾb ಎಂಬ :ಗಮದ ಅfಾ ಯ ೆಸ ನ°è, ಆ|ಾb ಾ}( ಮತು7 :ಗಮದ ಗುರುQನ aÃn ªÀÄvÀÄÛ <ಾ#`ನು ಆ ೋ-2 ಾK Lೕ:Mಾಸ ಾNರ ಸಾಯ*ಂದ ಸೃZ\Xದ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ UÀÄgÀÄw£À {ೕ9ಯನು :ೕ;. ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ರW 7ೆ pಾgೆ)ೆ :ಗಮದ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄAvÉ (ಪQ:fnಾ ) ನ9ಸುವ ಬ)ೆj ತರ4ೇQ :ೕ;, ತಮc ಬE ಇದ ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ :ಂದ ಆತನ ಸ~ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಮುಖ# ೆಾUfಾ ಆ ೋ-6 ಪರಶು ಾಮ ದುರುಗಣನವbರವರ ಸ~ಯನು ೊಂ*ದ 4ಾ#ಂKನ ಅ_( ಾರಂನು ಆತ:)ೆ :ೕ;, ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl ರವರ zೊ2ೆಯ
ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ, ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7. pಾgೆ)ೆ ಕಳO~X ಅ Mಾ [K
ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ಅ]ವೃ*e :ಗಮದ ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 520141001659653 ಯನು 2ೆ ೆಯಲು ಸಂಚುರೂX. ಾಯ(ಗತ 'ಾ;ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. *$ಾಂಕ: 20.02.2024 ರಂದು ಅೌಂ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆಯ ಬ) jೆ !ಾಖಾQಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-6 ಪರಶು ಾಮ ಇವರುಗಳ ಸ~ ಪaೆದು ಕಳO~Xರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಈ ಸಮಯದ
ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-
11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN ರವರು ಪರಸwರ ಸಂಪಕ(ದ
ದು ಒಳ ಸಂಚು ನaೆXರು2ಾ7 ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು
*$ಾಂಕ: 21.02.2024 ರಂದು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಬ ೋaಾ gಾ2ೆiಂದ ರೂ. 25 ೋ9ಗಳನು ಎಂ._ ೋ} pಾgೆಯ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ gಾ 7 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
520141001659653 gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರು2ಾ7 ೆ. ಆ ೋ-5 ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-6 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ *$ಾಂಕ: 26.02.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ(ನು ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN zೊ2ೆ ಸಂಪಕ(ದ
ದು ಒಳಸಂಚು ನaೆX. ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl 4ಾ#ಂ=
'ಾ#$ೇಜb ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಪಕ( WಾfX ಮುಂ*ನ ಹಣ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಬ) jೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂX, ಅದರಂ2ೆ *$ಾಂಕ: 04.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 25 ೋ9ಗಳನು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಬ ೋaಾ. Xದಯ# ರW 7ೆಯ ಉE2ಾಯ gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 12510100006588 gಾ2ೆiಂದ ಎಂ._ ೋ} pಾgೆಯ gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 520141001659653 )ೆ ಆ ೋ-5 ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-6 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ವ)ಾ(iXೊಂ;ದು, ತ-ಣMೇ *$ಾಂಕ: 05.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶT ಾN ರವರ zೊ2ೆ ಸಂಪಕ(WಾfX. ಸಂಚು
20
ನaೆX ಆತನು ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕುUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾV zೊ2ೆ 'ಾತ$ಾ; ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl 4ಾ#ಂ= 'ಾ#$ೇಜb ಮೂಲಕ ರೂ. 4,97,83,000/- ನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫ¸ïÖ¥sÉÊ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ Zelliant
Tradaing and Consulting Services ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆrಯ gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010055200008 gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು ಉ'ಾ#l $ೈl ಸವ(gïgಾl ನಂ. 107, aಾಲB( ¹Ìà ಾೋ:. 34 $ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, .9.ಎಂ. ಫB\ Wೆ\ೕV, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-560068 F.ಸಂ. 9844170588 ರವರ ೆಸ ನ ದು,
ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ೇWಾ: Mೆಂಕಟಸುಬ ಾN
ನಂ. 107, aಾಲB( X\ೕ ಾೋ:, 34 $ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, .9.ಎಂ. ಫB\ Wೆ\ೕV, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು- 560068 F.ಸಂ. 7080200363 ಎಂಬ ನಕ ೆಸ ನ
ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ
ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ 00015010055200008 ನಂಬb ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.05.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,97,83,000/- ªÀUÁ¬Ä¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ À̧zÀj CPËAmï¤AzÀ Ram karthik - 4,00,00,000/-, Sri Nagendra traders: 20,00,000/- Nageshwara Rao: 27,00,000/-, Bhimarapu Venkata Sai Phaninder Reddy:
50,00,000/-, Pittala srinivas: 25,00,000/-, Paratopia E-Commeree Pvt ltd.,: 1,50,00,000/-, PK enterprises: 50,00,000/-, Shourya Globals: 10,00,000/-, Battala sravana Kumari: 5,00,000/-, Battala vijay Kumar: 5,00,000/-, Nirmal Kumar lakshmkanth: 35,00,000/-, Chahath Production: 15,00,000/-, Siddi Jewellers: 37,00,011/-, Happiest Minds Technologies Limited: 22,99,792/-, Meruva Srilatha. 20,00,000/-, Pifums Management P Ltd: 2,00,00,000/-, Rathnakumari Kona: 25,00,000/-, Srimant Pirumala Gudimell:
25,00,000/-, Suveenaaleti: 2,80,000/- Venkatarao Kona:12,00,000/- gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÀ̧ ïÖ ೈ$ಾ l ೇ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು 4ಾ#ಂ= !ಾgಾQಗEಂದ ದೃಢಪ9\ದು, ಸದ ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À°è "ಆ ೋ -9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄUÀ¼À°è ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹, CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ¯Á s̈ÀPÁÌV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ°äÃQ :ಗಮದ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ದು, ಮತು7 ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
ನಕ !ಾಖಾQಗಳನು ತnಾ X ಅದನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ
ಇಟಾ )ೆ :ೕ; ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ
gಾ2ೆ 2ೆ ೆಯಲು
ಸಹಕ Xರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
*$ಾಂಕ: 05.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶT ಾN ರವರ zೊ2ೆ ಸಂಪಕ(WಾfX. ಆತನು ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕುUಂ; $ಾಗ ಾV zೊ2ೆ
21
'ಾತ$ಾ; ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl£ÀÄ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ, ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 pಾgೆಯ 'ಾ#$ೇಜb ಮೂಲಕ ರೂ. 5,35,15,000/- ಗಳನು, ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 00015010055200007 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ PIFUMS Management Pvt Ltd ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ದು, ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ಅರುtಾ 4ಾಲಕೃಷ ೈ ಮತು7 $ೋ5 )ೋ ಂದಯ# F.ಸಂ. 9448506470 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ ೇWಾ: ೕQಾ
ನಂ.147/1, 4ೇBಂ, 20$ೇ ೖl, Fದಲ$ೇ Wೆ\ೕV, .9.ಎಂ. ೇಔ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-
68 F.ಸಂ. 7080500819 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃ¶×X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ 00015010055200007 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.05.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,35,15,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ CPËAmï¤AzÀ SLS Building: 1,10,00,000/-, Chagenti Surendra Reddy: 1,00,00,000/-, Ram Karthik Project: 6,90,00,000/-, Siddi Jewellers: 39,00,000/- SLS building: 1,10,00,000/-, Sravan Kumar Reddy: 5,00,000/-, Zelliant Trading: 2,00,500/-, Bali reddy B: 2,44,0000/-, Rajesh Edlapalli, 4,18,600/- ರವರುಗE)ೆ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೇ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪಟ\ದು, ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-9 ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು
ಅಕಮMಾ ವ)ಾ(iX, ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಕಮ ಾಭ ಪaೆದು ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ
*$ಾಂಕ: 07.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ಮತು7 ಅಪ ಾfಕ ಒಳ ಸಂ{ನಂ2ೆ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಬ ೋaಾ gಾ2ೆiಂದ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ರೂ. 25 ೋ9 ವ)ಾ(ವtೆnಾ ದು, ಅ!ೇ *ನ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶT ಾN ರವರ zೊ2ೆ ಸಂಪಕ(WಾfX. ಆತನು ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕುUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾV zೊ2ೆ 'ಾತ$ಾ; ಸಂಚುರೂX, ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹನು ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ, ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 pಾgೆಯ 'ಾ#$ೇಜb ಮೂಲಕ ರೂ. 4,53,15,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 00015010055200010 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Happiest Mind Technologies Limited ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ
22
gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ Mೆಂಕಟರಮಣ ಎl. F.ಸಂ. 9900264107 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ ರಂK ೆ;
ದು)ಾ( ಾN, ಾಸ £ÀA:53, 1234, ೊಸೂರು ೕl ೋ}. ಮ;Mಾಳ, F.ಸಂ.9048903241 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ À̧ȶ׹ À̧zÀj ªÁå¥ÁgÀ À̧A Ȩ́ÜAiÀÄ ºÉ À̧j£À°è ¥sÀ̧ ïÖ ¥sÉÊ£Á£ïì PÉærmï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnêï Ȩ́Æ Ȩ́ÊnAiÀÄ «dAiÀĪÁqÀ ±ÁSÉAiÀİè 0005010 055200010 £ÀAªÀgï £À ZÁ°Û SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ.07.03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.4,53,15,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX ನಂತರ À̧zÀj CPËAmï¤AzÀ A1 Top Up Services 10,00,000/- Accord Business Services : 47,61,000/- Aithagoni Vasu Gowda: 5,00,000/-, Abhishekh reddy 4,00,000/- Battala sravana Kumari :10,00,000/-, Battala Vikjaya Kumara:
4,00,000/-, Bomma Anil Kumar Reddy: 7,50,000/-, Chaganti surendra Reddy: 1,00,00,000/-, Chandra Mohan: 5,00,000/-, Dama Jyothi: 5,00,000/-, Deepak Kumar: 22,00,00,000/-
Gallappalli kishore Kumar Reddy: 40,00,000/-, Gundala Ravi:
2,50,000/-, Guntur Goutham: 15,00,000/-, HGS Infracon:
90,00,000/-, Jagadeesha: 5,00,000/-, K Naveen Kumar Reddy:
10,00,000/-, K. Ravi: 6,00,000/-, KGR Rigs and Mines: 9,00,000/-, Kovoor Jayachandra Reddy: 15,00,000/-, Krishnappa: 5,00,000/-, Lakshmi: 25,00,000/-, Chandramohan M: 5,00,000/-, Mahaveer Impe 1,00,00,000/-, Valmiki Nigama: 71,75,000/-, Mukhtapuram Lokavardhan: 5,00,000/-, Nirmala: 4,00,000/-, Obedient Trading:
1,89,00,000/-, P. Venkatarao: 5,00,000/-, Akkeeru Venkatareddy:
6,50,000/-, Pradeep Rao: 5,00,000/-, Puri Mahesh Kumar 2,90,000/-, Ram Karthik Projects 2,38,00,000/-, Ravi Kumar kukkadapu: 5,00,000/-, Shobha K: 4,00,000/-, Siddi Jewellers:
77,85,003/-, Sony Techno 10,00,000/-, Soujanya H.E: 10,00,000/- , Sri Peddamma Thali Wines: 20,00,000/-, Sri Venkatalakshmi Borewell: 10,00,00/-, Srihitha Shopping Services; 50,00,000/-, Srihitha Shopping services LTD FF: 4,20,00,000/-, Uthi Poojitha:
15,00,000/-, Velma Suresh: 45,00,000/-, Vinod Kumar Giddaluri:
10,00,000/-, Zelliant Trading And consulting services 12,00,5000/- gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÀ̧ ïÖ ¥sÉÊ£Á£ïì PÉæÃrmï PÉÆÃ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾ9ನ
ಆ ೋ-9
2ೇಜತಮಟ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಗ* ಾಜ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ
ೇವxಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 07.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( ರವರ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5.46,85,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
23
00015010055200009 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Accord Business Services ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ಮೇಕು'ಾb F.ಸಂ.8748960999 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
4ೋnಾ ಶT$ಾ, ಾಸ ನಂ.88/26. 1$ೇ ಮಹ;,
ಮ ಯಪw ಬ ಂ`, 2ಾವ ೆೆ ೆ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, ಬB Wಾ#ಂ} ಹQ7ರ 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-21 F.ಸಂ. 6026137043 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫWೆ\ೖ$ಾl
ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ
00015010055200009
ನಂಬb ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.07.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,46,85,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Chikas Enterprises: 90,00,000/- , Srinivas Rao: 10,00,000/-Battala Savithramma: 20,00,000/-, Battala sravana kumari:10,00,000/-, Battala Titupathaiah:
30,00,000/-, Battala Vijaya Kumara: 5,00,000/-, Brahmareddy:
9,90,000/- Rajeshwar Reddy: 3,93,750/-, Chaithanya Bennehalli:
7,54,600/, Coastal Trading: 1,89,00,000/-, Deepak Kumar:
1,00,00,000/-, E Nageshwar Rao: 31,00,000/-, Pravin Kumar reddy: 3,02,600/-, Gopikrishna: 1,70,000/- Gubala Amaranath 10,00,000/-, Gubala gangadhara; 10,00,000/-, Happiest Minds technologies: 30,00,000/- Gudapathi sandeep Kumar: 1,50,000/-, Jagadeesh: 5,00,000/-, Jasmine Khan: 1,96,000/-, Raghav Reddy:
3,15,000/-, Krishnappa: 5,00,000/-, Valmiki Nigama:
2,00,00,000/- (Return amount) Medicare Medical & Gen:
3,00,000/-, Mudra drilling Equipements: 30,00,000/-, Mukhthapuram Gopala: Makhthapur Nokavardhan: 15,00,000/- Nalla Vikas reddy: 25,00,000/-, PIFUMS Management Pvt. Ltd 2,00,02,000/-, Pittala Srinivas; 43,00,000/-, Pradeep Mohan:
1,40,150/-, Prasanna Kumar S: 92,500/-,Raghavendra R:
1,24,400/-, Ram Karthik projeets: 2,20,00,000/-, Sangam Soujanya: 1,43,800/-, Sandeep Kumar Paladi: 2,61,500/-, Serena vivek kanthi mohan: 5,00,000/-, Sobha K: 10,00,000/-, Sham enterprises: 54,500/-, Siddi Jewellers: 80,00.501/-. Sridevi constructions: 98,000/-, Srihitha Shopping Services: 90,00,000/-, Sumith Cowman: 5,00,000/-, V6 Business Solutions: 6,00,000/, Venkataramana Mukhthapura: 15,00,000/-, Soujanya Ram:
2,22,000/-, Zellliant Trading and consulting: 4,91,00,000/-ರವರುಗE)ೆ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ ಆ ೋ-1
ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./:)ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ಅಕಮMಾ
ವ)ಾ(iX. Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
24
ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 07.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ರವರ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5,01,50.000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ Manhu
Enterprises ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 00015010055200005 ನು 2ೆ ೆXದ
gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು ಎಂ.ಸು ೇ ಕು'ಾb F.ಸಂ.8970185684 ಎಂಬುವ ಾ ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸರನು ಬಳXೊಂಡು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
!ೇವ4ೋi$ಾ 4ಾಬು ಾN. ಾಸ ನಂ. 12. 7$ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, {ಾUಡು)ೋ;. ;.ಆb.X ೕB\-4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-29, F.ಸಂ. 7080500812 ಎಂಬ !ಾಖಾQಯನು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X. ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl
ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ
00015010055200005
ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆ)ೆ *$ಾಂಕ.07.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,01,50,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Accord Business services :
3,01,48,000/-, Happiest Minds and technologies Ltd.,:
2,00,00,000/-, Siddi jewelers: 31,00,017/- gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೇ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ# $ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @
ಲ-.ಣ:)ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~MಾಟುಗE)ೆ ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೇವಣ ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 07.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ, ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 pಾgೆಯ ರುವ
:ಗಮದ gಾ2ೆiಂದ ರೂ. 4,98,50,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010055200006 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Y M Enterprises ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು Fೕಹl ಎಂ. F.ಸಂ.8147949148 ಎಂಬು!ಾ ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ೇWಾ:. ಸುzಾತ,
ಾಸ ನಂ. ನಂ.39. zೋ ಾೋ:, 3$ೇ ಾB, ಅಣಯ#ಮc ಮಂ*ರ, ಮ;Mಾಳ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-68 F.ಸಂ. 7080300495 ಎಂಬುದನು ನಕ !ಾಖಾQnಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ
ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ
00015010055200006 ನಂಬbನ ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X
*$ಾಂಕ.07.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,98,50,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj
25
CPËAmï¤AzÀ PIFUMS management Pvt. Ltd.: 4,98,48,000/-, Siddi Jewelles: 30,99,929 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÀ¸ïÖ ¥sÉÊ£Áì£ï PÉærmï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~MಾಟುUÀ¼À°è ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹, CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲPÀ ಆ ೋ-1 vÀ£Àß À̧éAvÀ ¯Á¨sÀPÁÌV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ°äÃQ :ಗಮದ ೇವxಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀAZÀ£É J¸ÀV CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á s̈ÀUÀ½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. *$ಾಂಕ: 11.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ- 11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN, ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾVರ zೊ2ೆ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನaೆX, ಆ ಮೂಲಕ ಯೂ: 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._ ೋ} pಾgೆiಂದ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( ರವರ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5,12,50,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾTfೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200195 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Volta Technology Solutions ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು ಸನ@ zೆ ೕ$ಾ <ಾಂ ೇ ಾ F.ಸಂ.9449038973 ಎಂಬ ೆಸ ನ
ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸರು ಮತು7
ಾಸದ
ಜಗಂಸುfೕb ೆ;, ಾಸ ನಂ. 77. $ೆಲಮಹ;, 10$ೇ ಾB, 20 ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, ಗಂ)ೋQ ಸಕ(@ ಹQ7ರ, .9.ಎಂ. 1$ೇ ಹಂತ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-68 F.ಸಂ. 7080500819 ಎಂದು ನಕ !ಾಖಾQnಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl
ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ
00015010145200195
ನಂಬb ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.11.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,12,50,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Accord Business services:
2,00,00,000/-, Happiest Minds Technologies Limited:
2,12,48,000/-, Zeliant Training And Consulting Services:
1,00,00,000/-, Siddhi Jewellers: 35,00,013/- gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @
ಲ-.ಣ:)ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು
ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ
ರುವ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದ
ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 11.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN, ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾV zೊ2ೆ ಒಳಸಂಚು
26
ನaೆX. ಆ ಮೂಲಕ ಯೂ: 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._ ೋ} pಾgೆiಂದ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ(ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4,47,50,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN
WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 00015010055200011 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ NITHYA SECURITY SERVICES ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು ಎ.Lೕ:Mಾಸ F.ಸಂ.9535234330 ಎಂಬ ೆಸ ನ
ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ
ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
$ಾgÀéಸು ೇ ಾಸ ನಂ. 3/7-3, 2$ೇ ಮಹ;,
3$ೇ ಅಡ ರWೆ7, ೊಸೂರು ಮುಖ#ರW 7ೆ, ಮ;Mಾಳ 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-68 F.ಸಂ.7080200363 ಎಂದು ನಕ !ಾಖೆnಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ;
ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ
00015010055200011 ನಂಬb
ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.11.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,47,50,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Happiest Minds Technologies Limited 4,47,48,000/- gÀªÀ )ೆ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೇ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ 8ಾರತ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ªÀªÀÄð @ ®PÀëöät ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು "DgÉÆÃ¦-3'
ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೇವxಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ XೊಳOPವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
*$ಾಂಕ: 21.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-ಣ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-11 $ಾ)ೇಶTರ ಾN, ಆ ೋ-12 $ೆಕUಂ9 $ಾಗ ಾV zೊ2ೆ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನaೆX ಆ ಮೂಲಕ ಯೂ: 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._ ೋ} pಾgೆ gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
520141001659653 )ೆ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಬ ೋaಾ gಾ2ೆiಂದ ರೂ.44,00,00,000/- ವ)ಾ(ವtೆnಾ ದು. ಇ!ಾದ ನಂತರ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( ರವರ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ ರವರ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ಾಜ# ಹುಜೂb ಖzಾ$ೆiಂದ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಎಂ.; ಪದc$ಾಭ ಆ ೋ-5 ಮತು7 ಪರಶು ಾಮ ದುರುಗಣನವb ಆ ೋ-6 ಒಳಸಂ{:ಂದ *$ಾಂಕ: 25.03.2024 ರೂ. 43.33 ೋ9 ರೂ>ಾi ಅಕಮ ಹಣ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆnಾ ರುತ7!ೆ.
*$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-./ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4,55,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#: 000150
27
10145200202 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ System and Service Company ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಓ.;
ಅೌಂ ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ಾದ LೕಮQ ಉ'ಾ ೆ.ಎ@. F.ಸಂ.9844330032 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
Fಹಮc5 ಮಹ2ಾd ಆಲಂ ಾಸ ನಂ.5. 1$ೇ
ೕb, 1$ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7,
ಜಯನಗರ, ಎl.ೆ..X.ಎB ೇಔ, 'ಾ ೇನ ಹEP. 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-560040 F.ಸಂ.8009700515 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\
ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಜಯMಾಡ pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200202 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,55,00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Happiest Minds Technologies Limited 4,54,97,250/- ರವ )ೆ ಮತು7 ಫB\ ೈ$ಾ l ೇ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ಇತರ gಾ2ೆಗE)ೆ internal transactions ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @
ಲ-.ಣ ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು
ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-.ಣ£À ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5,07,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200203 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Ram Enterprises ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಓ.; ಅೌಂ
ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ¥Àj²Ã° À̧̄ ÁV ಅದರ gಾ2ೆ!ಾರ ಜಯಕೃಷ Dgï. F.ಸಂ.9845039402 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ಕb nಾ :K@ಕು'ಾb
ಾಸ ನಂ.19/58, $ೆಲಮಹ;, 7$ೇ ಾB, 'ಾಗ; ೋ}, ಮಂಜು$ಾಥನಗರ. 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು- 560023 F.ಸಂ.9048327961 ಎಂದು ನಕ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï ±ÁSÉAiÀİè 00015010145200203 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ 30.03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.5,07,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Accord Business Services 5,06,97,250 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ
28
ವ#ವಹರuÉUÀ¼À°è DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀjUÉ À̧A§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À°è ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ XೊಂqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-3 À̧vÀå$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ ಟ\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-./ ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4.84,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ WಾT*ೕನದ
ರುವ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200204 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Skillmap Training and Services Pvt Ltd ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಓ.; ಅೌಂ
ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯು zಾ:
zೋWೆ¡ F.ಸಂ.8593870077 ಎಂಬ ೆಸ ನ
ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸರು
ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
Fಹಮc5 ಆLm ಆ ಾಸ ನಂ.9/9, 3$ೇ ಮಹ;, 1$ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7,
ಚನಮc 4ಾ
=. ಮ;Mಾಳ, 'ಾರುQನಗರ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-68 F.ಸಂ.8009300792 ಎಂದು ನಕ !ಾಖೆnಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-
ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ
00015010145200204 ನಂಬbನ ಾ 7
gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,84,00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Happiest Minds Technologies Limited : 4,83,97,250/- gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ(@ ಲ-.ಣ :)ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು
ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ(@ ಲ-.ಣ ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ(@ ಲ-.ಣನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5.15,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200205 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ SWAP Design Pvt Ltd ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ
ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
ಓ.; ಅೌಂ ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ
ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ gಾ2ೆ!ಾರ
29
ತುಂ4ಾಲಂ ೕರWಾT? ತಂಡ ಚಕವQ( F.ಸಂ.9739158880 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
Fಹಮc5 ಆLm ಾಸ ನಂ-, 310,
ಎB.ಎB. .ಆb ಹಬ(l ¢
ೕ ಾ. ೈ2ೋಟ, Mೈ ೕ@, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-56,
F.ಸಂ.8009300326 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫWೆ\ೖ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN Ȩ́ÆWೈ9ಯ, ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200205 ನಂಬbನ ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X ¢£ÁAಕ 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5.15.00.000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Accord Business Services: 5,14,97,250 ರವ )ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX,
ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ElPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಶಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-./ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4,42,00,000/- ಗಳನು' ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200206 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ G.N.Industries ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ(
Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
ಓ.; ಅೌಂ ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ
ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ನ ೕl ಗುರು ಾV F.ಸಂ.9845030183 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ಅಹಮc5 4ೇ` ಾಸ ನಂ:36. $ೆಲ ಮಹ;, 6$ೇ ಾB, >ೈ¡ೈl ಸ ೕ(B ರW 7ೆ. zೈl !ೇMಾಲಯ, ೋಲ
ರ>ಾಳ#, ಜಯನಗರ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-40.
F.ಸಂ.8009300359 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫWೆ\ೖ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200206 ನಂಬbನ ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,42,00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Saranya Bullions: 2,00,00,000/-, Happiest Minds Technologies Limited:
25,91,090/-, Manhu Enterprises: 31,01,517/-, Nithya Security Services: 33,01,515, Pifums Management P Ltd: 39,00,509/-, Sujal Enterprises: 41,00,500/-, Volta Technology Solutions: 3501513, Zeliant Training And Consulting Services :37,00,511/-ರವ )ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ
ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ
30
ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-.ಣನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4,56,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200207 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Novel Security Serviceas pvt Ltd ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ 2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
ಓ.; ಅೌಂ
ನಂ:34124010000007 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ;.ಎB. ಾಘMೇಂದ ಮತು7 LೕಮQ ಆpಾ . F.ಸಂ.9448496654 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ಇ?2ಾVgಾl ಾಸ ನಂ: 665/9, 3$ೇ ಾB, 6$ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, ಜಯನಗರ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-40. F.ಸಂ.9005700476 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂW rೆಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200207 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,56,00,000/-,UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹, £ÀAvÀgÀ À̧zÀj CPËAmï¤AzÀ Coastal Trading: 45,60,000/-, Ganga Bhavani Agencies: 1,00,00,000/-, Happiest Minds Technologies Limited: 48,50,720/-, Obedient Trading: 45,60,000/-, Ramkarthik Projects And I: 90,00,000/-, Siddhi Jewellers: 65,24,495/-, Sujatha N: 10,00,000/-, Y M Enterprises : 31,01,429/- ರವ )ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX.
ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮzÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀªÀjUÉ «Äà À̧°nÖgÀĪÀ oÉêÀuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á s̈ÀUÀ½ À̧ĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀAZÀ£É J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ:30.03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 À̧vÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ವಮ( @ ಲ-.ಣನ À̧ÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ gÀÆ. 5,63,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦-3 À̧vÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ¥sÀ̧ ïÖ ¥sÉÊ£Áì£ï PÉærmï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnêï Ȩ́Æ Ȩ́Ên SÁvÉ À̧ASÉå:
00015010145200208 AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ೊಂ*ರುವ Sujal Enterprises ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ(
Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
N.r. CPËAmï ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ
31
ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ gಾ2ೆ!ಾರ ಾದ LೕಮQ ೇgಾ F.ಸಂ.9739593456 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ಅಲುವಲ
ಪ8ಾಕರ ೆ; ಾಸ ನಂ: 168. ಹ ೆ ನಂ.301, 8$ೇ
ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, 1$ೇ ಾB, ಜಯನಗರ, >ೈ¡ೈl ೋ} 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-40. F.ಸಂ.8528987770 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\
ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200208 ನಂಬbನ ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,63,00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Happiest Minds Technologies, Limited: 5,62,97,295/-, Siddhi Jewellers: 41,00,007/- gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. À̧zÀj ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À°è ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-1
ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಅ!ೇ *ನ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @
ಲ-.ಣನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5,88,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200209 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ Grab A Grub Services Pvt Ltd
ಎನುವ ಸಂW rೆ gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
ಓ; ಅೌಂ
ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ, ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು
ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅವರ 'ಾ ೕಕ fಗtೇ ಜಗ*ೕ >ಾ9ೕ@ F.ಸಂ.8247007158 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
ಆL ಅನTb >ೈ_ ಾಸ
ನಂ: 190, <ೆ ಾಂ ಎಂ>ಾ
iಂ ೌXಂ` WೊWೈ9 ೇಔ, 7$ೇ ಾB, 1$ೇ ೖl,
)ೋ>ಾಲl ೆXaೆಂ: ಎದುರು, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-23. F.ಸಂ.8009300175 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN
WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ
00015010145200209 ನಂಬb ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು
>ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,88.00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸರ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ Happiest Minds Technologies Limited : 5,87,97,250/- ರವ )ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾಟುಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ
ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವLMಾಟುಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು
ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ
32
ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ «Äà À̧°nÖgÀĪÀ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅ=ರಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ J À̧VgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.04.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( ಲ-./ ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 4,50,01,500/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ ೈ$ಾl ೆ; PÉÆÃ D¥ÀgÉÃnêï WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200210 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ V6 Business solutions ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ
vÉgÉAiÀįÁzÀ ಕ$ಾ(ಟಕ
ಮಹZ( Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೆಸ ನ
ಓ.; ಅೌಂ ನಂ:034124010000007 ಂದ
ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ಉಾ
B ೆ.)ೌಡ F.ಸಂ.9945847888 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂW rೆಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ
Fಹಮc5 2ೋ= ಾಸ ನಂ: 618, 2$ೇ ಮಹ;, 8$ೇ
ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, ._.ಎB. ಗ@ ೇ;ೕB ಾWೆ\@ ಹQ7ರ, ಹಂನಗರ, ಜಯನಗರ-560104 F.ಸಂ.9115526432 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X. ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ ಫB\
ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ 00015010145200210 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 4,50,01,500/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rohit Jewellers: 1,49,10,000/, Bytech Solution: 1,50,30,000/-, Barcode Enterprises: 1,56,40,000/- Valmiki Nigama: 1,00,00,000/- gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ~Mಾ9ನ
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ(:)ೆ ವ~Mಾ9ನ
ಹಣವನು
ವ)ಾ(iX. ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು
ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. *$ಾಂಕ:06.05.2024 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ನ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯಂ2ೆ ರೂ. 5,10,00,000/- ಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ಇಟಾ ಈತನ 'ಾ ೕಕತTದ ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9 gಾ2ೆ ಸಂgೆ#:
00015010145200211 ಯನು ೊಂ*ರುವ TALENQ SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD ಎನುವ ಸಂWೆr gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ೋ} pಾgೆಯ 2ೆ ೆಯಾದ ಅೌಂ ನಂ:520141001659653 ಂದ ವ)ಾ(iXರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ gಾ2ೆಯನು ಪ Lೕ ಸಾ ಅದರ 'ಾ ೕಕ ಇgÁélಅ$ಾ F.ಸಂ.9980422449 ಎಂ*ದು, ಆ ೋತರು ಸದ ಸಂWೆrಯನು ಅ!ೇ ೆಸರು ಮತು7 ಾಸದ Fಹಮc5
Wೊೇ@gಾದ ಾಸ ನಂ: 213. 6$ೇ ಮುಖ#ರWೆ7, 1$ೇ ಹಂತ, .9.ಎಂ ೇಔ,
33
4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-560029. F.ಸಂ. 7800600838 ಎಂದು ನಕ nಾ ಸೃZ\X, ಸದ Mಾ#>ಾರ ಸಂWೆrಯ ೆಸ ನ
ಫB\ೈ$ಾl ೆ; ೋ-ಅಪ ೇ9ೕN WೊWೈ9ಯ ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 pಾgೆಯ
00015010145200211 ನಂಬb£À ಾ 7 gಾ2ೆಯನು >ಾರಂ]X *$ಾಂಕ.30.03.2024 ರಂದು ರೂ. 5,10,00,000/- ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ನಂತರ ಸದ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ M Chandra Mohan: 3,36,90,000/-, Surya Mitra Impex:
1,56,40,000/-, Sipul Enterprises Limited: 34,65,000/-, Valmiki Nigama : 2,00,00,000/-ರವ )ೆ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ ಆ ರುವದು ದೃಢಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ. ಸದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಆ ೋ-1 ರವ )ೆ ಸಂಬಂfXದ ವ#ವಹರtೆಗಳ
ಹಣವನು ವ)ಾ(iX.
ಅದನು ನಗ*ೕಕ Xೊಂಡು ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೋ-1 ತನ ಸTಂತ ಾಭಾU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ಪ Lಷ\ ಪಂಗಡದವ )ೆ ?ೕಸ 9\ರುವ ೇವx ಹಣವನು ದುರುಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆ ಎಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಸದ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-./ನು ಆ ೋ-3 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ lPÁj ಮೂಲಕ ಮತು7 ಆ ೋ-9 2ೇಜ ತಮಟಂ ಇವರನು ಉಪೕ Xೊಂಡು ನಕ gಾ2ೆAiÀİè ವ)ಾ(iXೊಂಡ ಹಣವನು ನಗ*ೕಕ X, ಹMಾಲ ವ~Mಾ9ನ ಮುgಾಂತರ 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ನUÀgÀzÀ ಯಶವಂತಪರದ ಆ ೋ-2 ಾK Lೕ:Mಾಸನ ಮ$ೆಯ ನಂ.-1604, Mೈಷ ನ-ತ ಅ>ಾ( Amï, ಯಶವಂತಪರ ೈೆTೕ Wೆ\ೕಷl ಹQ7ರ, ಯಶವಂತಪರ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು-560022, ಅ>ಾ(ಂನ >ಾK(AUï À̧ܼÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ ಈತ:)ೆ ಆ ೋ ಆ ೋ- 11 $ಾ)ೇಶT ಾN ಈತ:)ೆ ನಗದು ರೂಪದ
ಅPÀæªÀÄ ಾ8ಾಂಶದ >ಾಲು ಹಣವನು :ೕ;,
ಅಕಮzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä M¼À À̧AZÀÄ gÀƦ¹ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªȨ́ ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ಈತನು Mಾ [K :ಗಮ*ಂದ
ವ)ಾ(iಸಾದ ಹಣದ
*$ಾಂಕ: 05.03.2024 ರಂದು Zelliant Trading and
Consulting Service ನ ಅೌಂ:ಂದ X* ಜೂ#Mೆಲb gಾ2ೆ)ೆ ರೂ. 37,00.011/-, ಮತು7 ಅ!ೇ *ನ PIFUMS Management Pvt Ltd ಕಂಪ: gಾ2ೆiಂದ X* ಜೂ#Mೆ@ )ೆ ರೂ.39.00,000/- *$ಾಂಕ. 07.03.2024 ರಂದು Accord Business Services gಾ2ೆiಂದ X* gÀÆ. 80.00,501/- ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ Happiest. Mind technologies Limited ಅೌಂ:ಂದ X* ಜೂ#Mೆ@ )ೆ ರೂ. 77,85,003/- *$ಾಂಕ:
07.03.2024 ರಂದು Y M Enterprises ಅೌಂ:ಂದ X* ಜೂ#Mೆ@ )ೆ ರೂ. 30,99.929/-: *$ಾಂಕ:11.03.2024 ರಂದು Volta Technology Solutions ಅೌಂ :ಂದ X* ಜೂ#Mೆಲgïì)ೆ ರೂ. 35.00.013/-. *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು Sujal Enterprises ಆೌಂ:ಂದ X* ಜೂ#MೆಲB( )ೆ ರೂ. 41,00,007/-, *$ಾಂಕ: 23.04.2024 ರಂದು V6 Business Solutions CPEAmi:ಂದ ೋ~§ ಜೂ#Mೆ@ )ೆ ರೂ.
34
1,49,10,000/-. ಗಳನು ವ)ಾ(iX, ಅದೆU ಪQnಾ {ನದ ಸU§ ಗಳನು ಪaೆದು ಅವಗಳನು ಆ ೋ-2 ಾK Lೕ:Mಾಸ ಾN ಮತು7 ಜೂ#Mೆಲ ಅಂಗ;ಗಳ 'ಾ ೕಕರ ಸಹಾರ*ಂದ ಕಮMಾ 4ೆಂಗಳ6 ನ
ಮತು7 ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 ನ
ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು ಸTಂತ
ಾಭೋಸrರ ಉಪೕ XೊಳPಲು ತನ WಾTfೕನದ
ದ ಮ$ೆಯ
pೇಕ Xರುವ!ಾ ರುತ7!ೆ
~ೕ)ೆ ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವಮ(ನು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ೇವx gಾ2ೆಯ ದ ಹಣವನು
ಅಕಮMಾ ವ)ಾ(iXೊಂಡು ಹMಾಲ ರೂಪದ
ಹಣವನು Mಾಪಸು ಪaೆದುದಲ
!ೆ, {ನದ
ಸUvïUÀಳ ರೂಪದ
ಅವಗಳನು ತನ WಾTfೕನೆU ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು ಸಾ( ಸಂW rೆ)ೆ ವಂ{ಸುವದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಪ ಾಧ Mೆಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಆ ೋ-1 ಸತ#$ಾ ಾಯಣ ವ'ಾ( @ ಲ-.ಣ ಈತನು ತನ ಪ ಚಯದ ಆ ೋ-4 Wಾi!ೇಜ !ೇವರಪ
zೊ2ೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂX. ಆತ:)ೆ Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ನಕ ಗುರುತು {ೕ9ಯನು ಮತು7 ನಕ ಆ|ಾb ಾ}(£ÀÄß ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5 ನ
ತnಾ X. ಆತನನು MಾೆTೕK
:ಗಮದ ಅfಾ ಯಂ2ೆ ನ9ಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂ{ಸಲು ಸಾಯ 'ಾ; ಆ ೋ-7 ಚಂದFೕಹl zೊ2ೆ *$ಾಂಕ: 30.03.2024 ರಂದು ಯೂ:ಯl 4ಾ#ಂ= ಆm ಇಂ;nಾ ಎಂ._. ರWೆ7 pಾgೆ)ೆ ಕಳO~X, 4ಾ#ಂ= ಅೌಂ ಓಪ:ಂ` ಾರಂ ಅನು ಪaೆದು ಅದರ 2ಾನು
ೈದ ಾ4ಾ5ನ
ಅಪ ಾಧMೆಸಗಲು ಪaೆ*ದ ನಕ Xೕಲುಗಳನು Mಾ [K :ಗಮದ ವ#ವWಾrಪಕ :!ೇ(ಶಕ ಆ ೋ-5 ಪದc$ಾಭ ಮತು7 ೆಾUfಾ ಆ ೋ-6 ಪರಶು ಾಮ ದುಗ(ಣನವರುಗಳ ೆ= ಾೆಯ ೕೆ ಾಕುವ ಸ~ಗಳನು ೋಲುವಂ2ೆ ಸ~ Xೕಲುಗಳನು ತnಾ X. ಸದ Xೕಲುಗಳನು ಮು*X. ಸದ ಅೌಂಗEಂದ ಹಣ ವ)ಾ(ವtೆ 'ಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ $ೇರMಾ ಾರtÂÃಕತ($ಾಗುವ ಮೂಲಕ ವಂಚ$ೆಯ ಅಪ ಾಧMೆಸ ರು2ಾ7$ೆ. ಮತು7 ಸದ ಹಣವನು ಅಕಮ ಾಭಾU 2ಾನು ನಗದು ಮತು7 {ನದ ರೂಪದ
ಪaೆದುೊಂಡು ಅಕಮ ಾಭ ಗEXರು2ಾ7$ೆ.
ಕಲಂ: 120(), 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, L¦¹ jÃvÁå ಅಪ ಾಧMೆಸ ರುವದು ತ:gೆiಂದ ದೃಡಪ9\ರುತ7!ೆ."
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet narrates vivid details of the alleged offence committed by the petitioner, which makes him the key conspirator. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner comes up with a challenge to the arrest on the score that the arrest was illegal on two counts - one non-furnishing of
35
grounds of arrest and the other not being produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours after taking him into custody.
13. The prayer sought by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14252 of 2025 is as follows:
"Declare that the arrest of the petitioner dated 11.06.2024 in Crime No.118 of 2024 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Jude (P.C Act) at Bengaluru is illegal and consequently release the petitioner from the judicial custody, forthwith with a direction to the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner herein and further quash the remand order dated 26-06-2024 as per Annexure-F insofar as petitioner is concerned."
(Emphasis supplied) The grounds in the petition in support of the aforesaid prayer is as follows:
"42. The Petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2025 and has since been in judicial custody. The investigation has been concluded, and the final charge sheet has been filed on 05.08.2024. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. The Petitioner is ready and willing to comply with any stringent conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court to ensure his availability for trial. His continued incarceration, despite completion of investigation, amounts to pre trial punishment, which is contrary to the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
36
43. The Petitioner most humbly submits that as per the investigation record, the entire sum of ₹94.73 Crores, which was allegedly misappropriated from the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation, has been traced, frozen and recovered from third-party accounts by the Investigating Agency. In view of this development, the principal financial loss alleged against the Petitioners and other accused persons no longer survives, and the purpose of investigation and prosecution stands substantially fulfilled. Hence, continued Incarceration of the Petitioner serves no legal or prosecutorial interest.
44. The Petitioners further submit that all other co-accused persons, including Accused Nos. 3 to 12, who are alleged to have played more direct and operational roles such as presenting forged documents, Impersonating officials, transferring funds, and operating fictitious accounts have already been enlarged on bail by competent courts. The Petitioner, however, remains in custody despite the fact that his alleged role is limited to indirect conspiracy without direct material involvement in execution or misappropriation. In such circumstances, the principle of partly and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution warrant that the Petitioner also be released on bail under similar conditions. Denial of bail to the Petitioner while others stand released would amount to unequal treatment without justification.
45. The petitioner submits that there is a delay in trail thereby violating Article 21 of the constitution of India and in
K.A.Najeeb's case, considering the fact that the accused were in jail for a period of more than five years and there were 276 witnesses left to be examined, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to Interfere with the order granting bail to the accused by the High Court on the ground of delay in trial and long period of incarceration suffered by the accused. in paragraphs 15, 17 & 18 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee
37
(Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India [Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, para 15: 1995 SCC (Cri) 39), it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges
38
beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected."
46. The Apex Court In case of S Muruga Vs state of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal appeal 1250/2022 case where an incident occurred where the assailants entered the office of the Mayor in Chittor District along with a pistol by wearing mask and trespassed into the Chambers of the Mayor during day time and committed the murder of the Mayor and shot her dead with a point blank range with a pistol. After threatening officials, the assailants escaped from the scene. Charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is going on. The Apex Court held as follows:
"We are troubled by the fact that seven years after the incident the prosecution witnesses have not been examined and the trial is yet to commence. This is completely unacceptable. Time lag creates its own problems in the testimony of the witnesses more so the eye witnesses.
We are however, inclined to grant bail to the appellant considering the role ascribed to the appellant in the charge sheet and the total period spent in custody. Ordered accordingly. This is subject to such conditions that the trial Court may impose. We in addition make it clear that the appellant would be required to be present personally before the trial Court on all dates and would facilitate in the trial. If the trial Court finds that the appellant is endeavouring to delay the trial, or thereafter temper with the evidence, we authorize the trial Court to cancel the bail and put the appellant in custody."
47. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs State of Maharastra & Anr in Criminal Appeal 2787/2024 has held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. It is also further held as follows:
In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards ball, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on ball if the trial
39
is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply: "We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code." Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner & future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect, may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
Therefore, the prosecution has violated the very fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in the constitution of India. The Apex Court has also advocated humanistic approach
40
towards accused and under trials keeping in mind the fact that most of the crimes are products of socio-economic circumstances. The Apex Court ordered accused to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions which the trial court may deem fit to impose.
48. The petitioner humbly submits that the Apex Court Three Judges in SLP No. 8740/2024 granted bail to the accused who was alleged to have committed GST Input fraud amounting to 1032 crores, the apex court held that the petitioner is in custody for nearly 9 months and thereby bail was granted.
49. The Petitioner humbly submits that in light of the Vihaan Kumar Judgement, the arrest of the Petitioners is more particularly in violation of Article 22(1) & 21 of The Constitution of India. The Fundamental Right of the Petitioners is violated, rendering the arrest as illegal. The Petitioners humbly submits that the Respondent Police have failed to communicate grounds of arrest to the Petitioners. The same is in violation of Vihaan Kumar Judgement, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2025. Therefore, on this ground alone the Petitioners is entitled to be released from Judicial Custody.
50. The Petitioner humbly submits that this Hon'ble Court in the Writ Petition No. 9302/2025, as clearly held that Non- compliance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India i.e. to furnish the Written grounds of arrest to the arrestee is mandatory. Non-compliance of the same vitiates the arrest and any subsequent remand order. Even If the arrest occurred before the Pankaj Bansal and Vihaan 's Case, in other words the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court is always Retrospective in nature."
On a perusal at the grounds so projected by the petitioner, what would unmistakably emerge is, arrest of the petitioner on 11-06-2024 was illegal, as there was no transit warrant and no grounds of arrest was supplied to the petitioner. It was contended
41
that the arrest of the petitioner in particular was in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar was placed.
14. The coordinate Bench, answering the petition, rejects the same by the following order:
"2. The petitioner being accused No.1 has hatched a conspiracy to knock off the amount which was in the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation (for short 'Corporation'). As per the averments of the charge sheet, the accused No.1 is stated to have committed misappropriation of funds, by joining hands with others, for a sum of Rs.94,73,08,500/-. Therefore, a case came to be registered against all the accused.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking relief on the ground that he was not given the grounds of arrest, which was required to be given as per the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another.
4. It is further submitted that the other accused have been released by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that Grounds of arrest was not given to the accused. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State vehemently argued the matter by contending inter alia that the petitioner is standing on a different footing than others. He is the mastermind behind the entire scheme, which would indicate that he hatched a conspiracy with others, to knock off the amount lying in
42
the Corporation. Moreover, there are several cases pending against the petitioner in respect of similar offences. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government pleader prays to reject the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and charge sheet, the petitioner is stated to have involved in huge financial fraud at different States. In the earlier round, his bail petition has been rejected by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court on 18.03.2025. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the Grounds of arrest has not been given to the accused, however, at this stage, both the parties have not produced any documents in that regard. Moreover, the petitioner has involved in many such cases. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as sought for, on that ground.
7. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition stands dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
This order becomes final. A week after rejection of the petition, the petitioner files the subject petition. It now becomes germane to notice the prayer sought in the subject petition. It reads as follows:
"a Quash the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No.118/2024 pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and
43
Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru (Annexure-C) arising out of FIR in Crime No.118 of 2024 dated 28-05-2024 (Annexure-A) and the charge sheet dated 5-08-2024 (Annexure-E) filed by the respondent No.1 Police for the alleged offence punishable Under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as against the petitioner is concerned, and
b. Declare that the arrest of the petitioner on 11.06.2024 and the remand order dated 13-06- 2024 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as illegal and void ab initio in view of the rejection of transit warrant by the Magistrate at Hyderabad on 12-06-2024 and accordingly quash the remand order dated 13.06.2024 passed in Crime No.118 of 2024 by the learned III ACMM, Bengaluru as per (Annexure C & D) insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
c. Declare that the arrest of the petitioner dated 11.06.2024 in Crime No.118 of 2024 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.Act) at Bengaluru (Annexure-C) is illegal and consequently release the petitioner from judicial custody, forthwith with a direction to the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner herein."
(Emphasis added)
Prayer (b) is to declare arrest of the petitioner being violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India in view of rejection of transit warrant. Prayer (c) is to hold the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and consequently release him. Prayer (a) for the first time, springs
44
seeking quashment of entire proceedings in Crime No.118 of 2024 and the charge sheet so filed thereon.
15. The issue now would be, whether the petitioner is entitled to repeatedly challenge the alleged illegal arrest on new grounds that were available at the time when he had filed the earlier petition. It is an admitted fact that the present petition, second in line, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC which was the same provision that was invoked when filing the earlier petition. Jurisprudence is replete by the Apex Court considering the issue, as to whether the second petition seeking the very same prayer, would become maintainable or otherwise, particularly on pleas manifestly available at the first instance.
16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANIL
45
KHADKIWALA v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)1 wherein the Apex Court considering the issue has held as follows:
"…. ….. ….
8. In Mohan Singh [Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706: 1975 SCC (Cri) 156: AIR 1975 SC 1002], it was held that a successive application under Section 482 CrPC under changed circumstances was maintainable and the dismissal of the earlier application was no bar to the same,
observing: (SCC pp. 709-10, para 2)
"2. … Here, the situation is wholly different. The earlier application which was rejected by the High Court was an application under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceeding and the High Court rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet to be led and it was not desirable to interfere with the proceeding at that stage. But, thereafter, the criminal case dragged on for a period of about one-and-a-half years without any progress at all and it was in these circumstances that Respondents 1 and 2 were constrained to make a fresh application to the High Court under Section 561-A to quash the proceeding. It is difficult to see how in these circumstances, it could ever be contended that what the High Court was being asked to do by making the subsequent application was to review or revise the order made by it on the earlier application. Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents 1 and 2 and consider whether on the
1 (201 9) 1 7 SCC 294
46
facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application of Respondents 1 and 2 were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier application of the first respondent because, despite the rejection of the earlier application of the first respondent, the prosecution had failed to make any progress in the criminal case even though it was filed as far back as 1965 and the criminal case rested where it was for a period of over one-and-a-half years."
9. In Harshendra Kumar D. v. RebatilataKoley [Harshendra Kumar D. v. RebatilataKoley, (2011) 3 SCC 351: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 717: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1139:
2011 Cri LJ 1626], this Court held: (SCC p. 362, paras 26-
27)
"26. Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. In our opinion, the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of Director of the Company. Had these documents been considered by the High Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant has resigned much before the cheques were issued by the Company.
27. As noticed above, the appellant resigned from the post of Director on 2-3-2004. The dishonoured cheques were issued by the Company on 30-4-2004 i.e. much after the appellant had resigned from the post of Director of the Company. The acceptance of the appellant's resignation is duly reflected in the Resolution dated 2-3-2004. Then in the prescribed form (Form 32), the Company informed to the Registrar of Companies on 4-3-2004 about the appellant's resignation. It is not even the case of the complainants that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date the offence was
47
committed by the Company, the appellant was not the Director; he had nothing to do with the affairs of the Company. In this view of the matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of the court."
10. Atul Shukla [Atul Shukla v. State of M.P., (2019)
17 SCC 299] is clearly distinguishable on its facts as the relief sought was for review/recall/modify the earlier order [Surendra Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1425] of dismissal in the interest of justice. Consequently, the earlier order of dismissal was recalled. It was in that circumstance, it was held that in view of Section
362 CrPC the earlier order passed dismissing the quashing application could not have been recalled. The case is completely distinguishable on its own facts.
11. The Company, of which the appellant was a Director, is a party-respondent in the complaint. The interests of the complainant are therefore adequately protected. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the second application for quashing of the complaint was not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application."
(Emphasis supplied)
A second petition was held to be maintainable on different grounds. The said judgment is distinguishable without much ado, as the petition preferred by the petitioner which comes to be rejected by the coordinate Bench has no difference with the subject petition. There is no iota of change of circumstance for the petitioner to be permitted to file second petition. The second petition is admittedly preferred adding a ground with regard to his arrest being illegal
48
from 11-06-2024 till he was remanded to police custody under the jurisdiction of Bengaluru, all on the score that the transit warrant was returned. This is a ground that was available to the petitioner at the time when he had filed the earlier petition. What was projected in the earlier petition, though filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was on grounds of arrest. That fails.
17. The second petition is preferred on an altogether new ground that his arrest was illegal, as transit warrant had been returned. As observed earlier, the petition was preferred on 12-05- 2025. The arrest of the petitioner was on 11-06-2024. By the time the earlier petition was filed, charge sheet also had been filed.
Therefore, this was a ground that was available to be taken and contended in the earlier petition. Since the said ground was not taken though available, it had been abandoned and the abandoned ground is exhumed in the subject petition. The petitioner now, by the present petition, is in effect wanting to resurrect substantially the same grounds interlaced with a plea for quashment of proceedings. This is clearly impermissible in law. Even in the criminal proceedings,
49
i.e., in the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the principle that a ground that was available to be taken at the outset not being taken cannot be permitted to be taken in a second petition, becomes applicable, as fragmented petitions would emerge on given up grounds. It can lead to several petitions being filed on each of the grounds that the petitioner would think of, after the dismissal of the petition, till he succeeds in one of the petitions. This is sans countenance.
18. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHISHAM LAL VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. id="sup_6">2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399
50
the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr. P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."
(Emphasis supplied) The said judgment is again followed in M.C. RAVIKUMAR v. D.S. VELMURUGAN3wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"… …. ….
Discussion and Analysis:—
10. We have heard the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned order and material placed on record.
11. The short question that arises for our consideration is "Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised even at the time of filing/decision of the first quashing petition?"
12. At the outset, we may like to note that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused- respondents that the second quashing petition came to be filed based on new grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it. From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the second quashing petition raised no such grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition. The failure of the accused-respondents to raise a pertinent ground/plea which was tangibly available to them at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition can in no circumstance grant a right to the said accused persons to file
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498
51
a subsequent quashing petition as it would amount to seeking review on pre-existing material.
13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that it is not open to an accused person to raise one plea after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first instance. We may hasten to add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable and its maintainability will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the onus to show that there arose a change in circumstances warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing petition would be on the person filing the said petition. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP, which are extracted below for ready reference:—
"11. …… Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr. P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court in the second quashing
52
petition amounted to review (plain and simple) of the earlier order passed by the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition, since there was admittedly no change in circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became available to the accused- respondents, after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition. The order passed by the High Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.
15. This Court has time and again held that the High Courts while exercising their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC, i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid conclusion, we may gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee19, the relevant portions whereof are quoted below for ease of reference:
"6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier application. The question as to the scope and ambit of the inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s
362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 that the inherent power of
53
the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power. We find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In the instant case, the quashing by the High Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the accused-respondents in respect of properties situated at Thanjavur vide order dated 9th March, 2020 was an event that happened well before the dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and the said ground/plea was manifestly available to the accused-respondents while seeking adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being the situation, the accused-respondents were not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea at a later point of time by filing the second quashing petition.
17. As an upshot of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of the record and cannot be affirmed. Hence, the impugned order dated 13th September, 2022 passed by the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. As a result, thereof, the Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 filed by the appellant-complainant against the accused- respondents is restored to the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai."
(Emphasis supplied)
54
The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted elucidation of law, both in
BHISAM LAL VERMA and RAVIKUMAR makes it abundantly clear that successive petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., grounded upon pleas manifestly available at the first instance, are impermissible. To permit otherwise, would be putting a premium on fragmented litigation, and reducing the judicial process into a stratagem for delay. That being the situation, the accused was not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, raising the ground/plea at a later point in time, by filing second petition.
19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that prayer for quashing the proceedings was not sought earlier; what was preferred was only to declare the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and his consequent release. Therefore, in effect, this is the first quashing petition that is preferred. This submission borders on hyper technicality. Two of the grounds now urged were manifestly available earlier - one ground is raised, the petition is lost. The second ground is raised in the second petition. Therefore, I decline to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel that
55
the second ground can be urged in the second petition, taking shelter under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the ground, on grounds of arrest and release on illegal arrest cannot be permitted to be agitated in the subject petition. In the light of the preceding analysis, I decline to entertain the subject petition, second in line, albeit, laced with a challenge to the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2:
(ii) If maintainable, whether the arrest of the petitioner could be held to be illegal, resulting in his release from custody?
20. The second issue that has fallen for consideration with regard to the arrest being illegal or otherwise, would be dependent upon the first issue. If the first issue was in favour of the petitioner, further examination would ensue. In the light of the issue No.1 being held against the petitioner, consideration of the issue No.2 is unwarranted, as, if the petition is not even
56
entertainable on the said issue, consideration of the issue would not arise. Therefore, issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
CHALLENGE TO THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.118
OF 2024 AND ITS AFTERMATH:
Issue No.3:
(iii) Whether interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (482 of the Cr.P.C.) is warranted?
21. What remains is, consideration of quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The complaint is quoted hereinabove. The petitioner is said to be key conspirator of huge scam running to ₹188/- crores. Cash of ₹8/- crores and gold of 15 Kgs. is found in the house of the petitioner who is said to be a civil contractor. The explanation of cash and gold found, has not come forward at all. Even if it has come forward, it has to be tested in evidence. The modus operandi of the petitioner is narrated in the summary of the charge sheet, as quoted hereinabove, insofar it
57
concerns the petitioner. The charge sheet paints the petitioner not as a passive bystander, but as the very kingpin of the fraudulent design. The wealth of detail in the investigation, recovery of cash and gold and the labyrinth of transactions alleged are all matters demanding the crucible of full blown trial. The case is shrouded with maze of facts. The money that had to be spent for upliftment of Scheduled Tribes, the avowed objective with which the Corporation was created, is allegedly swindled by the officers of the Bank, or the accused named in the charge sheet.
22. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court that the CBI is also conducting investigation on the alleged scam, as officers of the Bank, a Government of India undertaking are accused. It, therefore,
revolves round maze of facts which would amaze this Court for interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. If interfered, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
58
KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH4 wherein it is held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State Of U.P. 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
4 (2021) 9 SCC 35
59
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
60
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC
61
with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State Of U.P. 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
62
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)"
The principle enunciated in KAPTAN SINGH as observed is apposite:
quashing of proceedings post charge sheet is an exception not a rule and can be invoked only where the allegations taken, on their face value, disclose no offence whatsoever. This is far from the case here. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer with regard to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be rejected. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION:
63
entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance.
(ii) Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition.
(iii) In the light of the grave allegations, voluminous material and triable questions of fact, this Court cannot wield its extraordinary jurisdiction to stifle proceedings at their threshold.
In the result and for the reasons elaborated hereinabove, this Court finds no scintilla of merit in the present petition. Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:SS
64
Comments