Karnataka High Court
Mr. Roshan Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 27.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10880 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11550 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11697 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11788 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11918 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12312 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12846 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12864 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12879 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12887 OF 2025
2
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1 . MR.ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANHA,
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-30/20A,
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA,
BAJAL CHURCH,
BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE,
KANKANADY BAJAL, MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
2 . MRS.DAFNEY NEETHU D'SOUZA
W/O ROSHAN SALDANHA
D/O CYRIL EUGINE D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.24-4-304/1,
CHARLES VILLA,
NEAR ROTARY HEALTH CENTRE,
7TH CROSS ROAD,
ATTAVAR MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 570 027
AND ALSO
RESIDING AT NO.1-30/20A,
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA,
BAJAL CHURCH,
BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE,
KANKANADY BAJAL, MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU CITY - 570 027
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . MR.SIDDHARTH MOHAN
S/O SRI RAKESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT C -SECTOR,
A - ALINGANJ, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH STATE - 226 024
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ITS FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.30/2025 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU CITY, FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 316(2),
316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 61(2), R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS, AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MANGALURU CITY AS AN ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10880 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O. JOHN SALDANHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1-30/20A,
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA,
4
BAJAL CHURCH,
BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE,
KANKANADY, BAJAL,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
MANGALORE CITY-570 027.
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON,
MANGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3 . MR. JAIKAR REDDY VEDIRE
S/O V.PANDURANGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT VILLA NO.11, ADITYA ROYAL,
PAL VILLAS, SHAIKPET,
HYDERBAD,
TELANGANA - 500 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.22/2025 ON THE FILE OF CEN CRIME P.S., MANGALURU
5
CITY REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES U/S. 316(2), 316(5), 318(2),
318(3) R/W 3(5) OF BNS, WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND B AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW,
INCLUDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION; B. TO QUASH THE ARREST
DATED 18.07.2025 EFFECTED IN CRIME NO CEN P.S., MANGALURU
CITY AS ILLEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM
JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL PRISON MANGALURU, WITH A
DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.3; C. TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
REMAND DATED 18.07.2025 PASSED IN CRIME NO.22/2025 OF
CEN CRIME P.S. MANGALURU CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-B ON THE
FILE OF HONORABLE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MANGALURU CITY AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE CENTRAL
PRISON, MANGALURU TO RELEASE HIM FORTHWITH.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11550 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR.ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-30/20A,
JEPPINA MOGERU,
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA,
BAJAL CHURCH,
BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE,
KANKANADY, BAJAL,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU CITY - 570 027
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001)
2 . MR. RAJIV SHARMA
S/O SHAMLAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.502, MARBLE ARCH-94,
PATI HILL, BANDRA WEST,
MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.40/2025 ON THE FILE OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU CITY, REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES U/S 316(2),
316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 111 R/W 3(5) OF BNS, AS PER ANNEXURE-
A AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
COURT, MANGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11697 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1 . MR.ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-30/20A
JEPPINA MOGERU
7
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA
BAJAL CHURCH
BOLLA GUDA HOUSE
KANAKANADY, BAJAL
MANGALURU
DAKSHINAKANNADA
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANKANDY TOWN POLICE STATION
MANGALURU CITY - 570 027
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . NANDINI Y.N.,
D/O RAGHURAM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, 9TH MAIN
KAMADHENU NILAYA
M.V.MARG
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
CHENNAMMANAKATTE
BENGALURU - 560 050.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO.115/2025 U/S 318(4) R/W 3(5) OF BNS OF KANKANADY TOWN
POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY, WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF
8
THE 6TH JMFC COURT, MANGALURU CITY, DAKSHIN KANNADA
DISTRICT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11788 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANAHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-30/20A,
JEPPINA MOGERU
BAJAL BHOLLA GUDDA
BAJAL CHURCH BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE
KANKANADY BAJAL MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001)
2. MR. MANJUNATH R.,
S/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT 107, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
ROYAL COUNTRY LAYOUT
9
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU - 560 050.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.148/2025 OF CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S., CHITRADURGA,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 406 AND 420 OF IPC, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC COURT, CHITRADURGA, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS AN
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11918 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-30/20A,
JEPPINA MOGERU,
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA,
BAJAL CHURCH, BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE,
KANKANADY, BAJAL, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
10
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001)
2. KRISHNAMURTHY Y.N.,
S/O NARASIMHALU Y.N,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT 27/8/574, ARAVINDANAGARA,
M.R.PALLI, HINDUPURA TOWN,
ANANTAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SMT.L.V.APARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO.139/2025 OF CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 406, 420 OF IPC WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Dn.)
AND JMFC COURT CHITRADURGA AS PER ANNEXURE A AS AN
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12312 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. ROSHAN SALDANHA
S/O JOHN SALDANHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/ATNO.1-30/20A
JEPPINA MOGERU
BAJAL BOLLA GUDDA
BAJAL CHURCH,
BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE
KANKANADY, BAJAL, MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA
11
KARNATAKA - 575 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION
MANGALURU - 575 002
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001)
2. MR. NAVINCHANDRA PATEL
S/O MANGALDAS PATEL
AGED 69 YEARS
R/AT A1,GROUND FLOOR
MAYFAIR GARDEN
LITTLE GIBBS ROAD
MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI CITY
MAHARASTRA - 400 006.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO.109/2025 OF KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION,
MANGALORE FOR OFFENCES U/S 318(4) OF BNS AND ITS FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
JMFC VI COURT, MANGALORE (C/C) DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT,
AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
12
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12846 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. DAFNEY NEETHU D'SOUZA
(MENTIONED AS DAFFNA SALDANA IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O CYRIL EUGINE D'SOUZA,
NO.24-4-304/1 CHARLES VILLA,
NEAR ROTARY HEALTH CENTRE,
7TH CROSS ROAD ATTAVAR,
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
2. N.CHANDRASHEKHAR,
(MENTIONED AS SRINIVAS REDDY
@ KOTANOTA CHANDRASHEKHARA IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE NARASIMHALU
RESIDING AT
S.L.N NILAYA, KOTE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. AJAIKUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY
13
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALATHILETH HOUSE
RAMPURAN, KEERIKAD POST
ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 690 508.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C (U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.153/2025 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S.
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 406 AND 420
OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12864 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. DAFNEY NEETHU D'SOUZA
(MENTIONED AS DAFFNA SALDAN IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O CYRIL EUGINE D'SOUZA,
NO.24-4-304/1 CHARLES VILLA,
NEAR ROTARY HEALTH CENTRE,
7TH CROSS ROAD ATTAVAR,
ATTAVAR, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
2. N. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
(MENTIONED AS SRINIVAS REDDY @
KOTANOTA CHANDRASHEKHARA IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O. LATE NARASIMHALU
RESIDING AT
S.L.N NILAYA, KOTE ROAD,
14
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. TILAK DATH CHOWDRI .G,
S/O GANESH T.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.66, KNL,
KUMBAR PETE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU TOWN,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.147/2025 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CHITRADURGA TOWN
P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.
DN) AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 149,
406, 420 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE
CONCERNED.
15
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12879 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
N.CHANDRASHEKHAR
(MENTIONED AS CHANDRASHEKHAR IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE NARASIMHALU
RESIDING AT
S.L.N. NILAYA, KOTE ROAD
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHIVA KRISHANAMUTHY IYER
S/O A.R.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.17
MURTHY BHAVAN BUNGLOW,
ADJACENT TO JAI BHARAT SCHOOL,
RAVIKIRAN CHS LTD.,
CHERA NAGAR, SAGAON,
DOMBIVLI-EAST, KALYANA TALUK,
THANE DISTRICT,
16
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SMT. L.V.APARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
IN CR.NO.48/2024 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CHITRADURGA TOWN
P.S. ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA FOR OFFENCE P/U/S. 34, 417,
AND 420 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE
CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12887 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. DAFNEY NEETHU D'SOUZA
(MNTIONED AS DAFFNA SALDANA IN F.I.R.)
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O. CYRIL EUGINE D'SOUZA,
NO.24-4-304/1, CHARLES VILLA,
NEAR ROTARY HEALTH CENTRE,
7TH CROSS ROAD, ATTAVAR,
ATTAVAR, MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA
MANGALURU - 575 001.
2. N.CHANDRASHEKHAR
(MENTIONED AS SRINIVAS REDDY ALIAS
KOTANOTA CHANDRASHEEKHARA IN F.I.R)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASIMHALU
RESIDING AT
S.L.N. NILAYA, KOTE ROAD,
17
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CHITHRADURGA TOWN POLICE STAION,
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. AJAYA NAIDU
S/O J.V.KANDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3RD FLOOR, 90 DAIMOND
HILLS PLIT NO. 122 AND 123
LUMBINI AVENUE GACHIBOWLI,
SEREILINGAMPALLY MANDAL
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,
HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA - 500 019.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R IN CR.NO.169/2025 OF
RESPONDENT NO.1 CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION ON THE
FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC,
CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 34, 406 AND
420 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE
CONCERNED.
18
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
In most of the cases the petitioners are two different persons;
they are husband and wife. The complainants are different in each
of the cases. All of them are filed calling in question separate
crimes registered against the husband and the wife along with
others for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5),
318(2), 318(3), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel along
with Sri Kariappa N.A., learned counsel for petitioners in all the
petitions, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent - State in all the petitions, Sri Vaibhav
Malimath, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in
Crl.P.Nos.10798/2025, 11697/2025, Smt. L.V.Aparna, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.Nos.11918/2025, 12879/2025,
Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in
19
Crl.P.No.12846/2025, Sri Ajay Kadkol, learned counsel for proposed
respondent in Crl.P.No.11697/2025 and for respondent No.2 in
Crl.P.No.12864/2025.
3. Facts, in brief germane are as follows: -
In Criminal Petition No.10798 of 2025:
3.1. The complainant/respondent No.2 is one Siddharth
Mohan. The complainant and one Dr. Anubha Yadav, cousin sister
of the complainant generate interest in purchase of a property in
Mangalore. Dr. Anubha Yadav is introduced to the 1st petitioner/
Roshan Saldhanha by a broker by name Subhash. The 1st petitioner
claims ownership of a house and projects it to be for sale. On
23.01.2025, Dr. Anubha Yadav was asked to come to Mangalore
and visit the house and also meet other partners of the 1 st
petitioner. On three dates viz., 17-03-2025, 31-03-2025 and
01-04-2025, Dr. Anubha Yadav visits Mangalore and finalizes the
deal of purchase of the house of the 1st petitioner at ₹10/- crores.
In furtherance of the deal, a bank transfer of ₹5/- crores is made in
favour one M/s. Yahviivi Ventures Private Limited to whom the
amount was directed to be transferred by the 1 st petitioner. On
20
10-04-2025, the 1st petitioner and another R.K.Nayak are said to
have obtained the identity documents of Dr. Anubha Yadav and
further asked to transfer ₹14,67,900/- towards sale registration and
now asked the said amount to be credited to one M/s Akshaya
Agency. A sale agreement was said to be executed between the
parties. That did not take place. Getting suspicion about the entire
transaction as after the aforesaid huge amounts of crores being
transferred, there was no answer from the 1st petitioner. The
company M/s Yahviivi Ventures Private Limited to whom Dr. Anubha
Yadav transferred ₹5/- crores did not belong to the 1 st petitioner.
The 2nd respondent, family member of Dr. Anubha Yadav, therefore
registers a complaint, which becomes a crime in crime No.30 of
2025 for the afore-quoted offences. Immediately thereafter, the
subject petition is preferred on 24-07-2025 and an interim order of
stay is obtained from the hands of the coordinate Bench on the
score that the matter, which is purely civil in nature is now dressed
with a colour of crime and the petitioners - husband and wife have
no nexus to the transfer that is made to some agency.
21
In Criminal Petition No.12312 of 2025:
3.2. The petitioner/Roshan Saldanha is accused No.1 and he
is the 1st petitioner in the companion petitions. The 2 nd respondent
is the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he is the
partner of one M/s. Umiya Infracon. The said company is into the
business of construction and development. It needed funds to the
tune of ₹250/- crores. Respondent No.1 contacts with one of his
family friend Mr. Parmar, which led the complainant to get himself
introduced to one Mr. Vaishali Dixit, who is said to be in the
business of funding and for getting finances was running the show
under M/s Wajra Financial Services. On 06-06-2025, a meeting
was arranged in Mangalore with the petitioner/accused No.1 who
assured that he will arrange and get ₹250/- crores for which the
complainant has to deposit 2% of the amount as stamp duty, which
would come to ₹5/- crores. Again, when accused No.1 wanted to
collect KYC documents, he further asked that 2% stamp duty
should be immediately deposited. Therefore, the complainant is said
to have deposited ₹4.99/- crores into the account of one Balaji
Enterprises. Accused No.1 then assured that he has started the
work and he will complete it in due course. On 18-07-2025, a
22
newspaper article appears showing the arrest of the petitioner in a
cheating and fraud case. The complainant woke up and immediately
registered the complaint on coming to know that his ₹5/- crores is
struck with the petitioner or with Balaji Enterprises, whom the
petitioner has introduced. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime
No.109 of 2025 registered on 20-07-2025. Immediately thereafter,
the subject petition is preferred on 21-08-2025 and a coordinate
Bench has granted an interim order of stay on the score that in the
companion petitions stay had been obtained from the hands of
different benches.
In Criminal Petition No.11918 of 2025:
3.3. Here again the petitioner is accused No.1 common in the
aforesaid two petitions. The modus operandi is also similar. The 2 nd
respondent is a proprietor of a silk manufacturing company. He
wanted to increase the width of his business. Therefore, in need of
money he approached one VimaleshHattikonda who in turn is said
to have told that one person in Chitradurga will get him loan as he
is running a business venture called Sai Finance, run by the
petitioner. The 2nd respondent needed huge amount. Therefore, 80
23
stamp papers were said to be required for the purpose of
disbursement of loan and the cost of which was indicated to be
₹40,00,000/-. ₹40,00,000/- was obtained from the hands of the
complainant with an assurance that in 15 days the loan amount
would be cleared. Loan amount did not come about to the coffers of
the complainant despite passage of 2 years. Here again the
complainant registers the crime looking at the television that the
petitioner had cheated several persons. The complaint is registered
on 16-07-2025 which becomes a crime in Crime No.139 of 2025.
Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approaches this Court in the
subject petition on 12-08-2025 and an interim order of stay is
granted on the score that in the companion petitions interim order
is granted.
In Criminal Petition Nos. 11788, 11697, 11550 and 10880 of
2025:
3.4. These petitions are preferred by the petitioner/s who are
accused No.1 or accused Nos. 1 and 2 as the case would be. The
modus operandi is similar. The crimes are registered by those
persons after looking into the newspaper or television that accused
24
No.1 has cheated and defrauded several people. Therefore,
individual facts in these cases need not be narrated.
3.5. There are other set of petitioners in four of the cases. In
Criminal Petition No.12846 of 2025, the petition is preferred by
accused Nos.2 and 3. They are arising out of the same crimes in
which accused No.1 has called in question those crimes registered
against him which are noted hereinabove. Therefore, individually
repeating the nature of allegations is not necessary.
3.6. In Criminal Petition No.12864 of 2025, it is calling in
question a crime in Crime No.147 of 2025 in which the petitioners
are accused Nos.4 and 5. In other petitions similar is the
allegation.
3.7. In a nutshell, these petitions are preferred by accused
Nos.1 to 5 in common crime or in different crimes where they are
common accused. In all these cases, interim orders are granted on
the score that money transactions having gone wrong, which led
the complainants to register crimes for the purpose of recovery of
money.
25
4. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners in all these petitions submits that a purely money
transaction is rendered a colour of crime or a civil proceedings is
rendered a colour of crime. It is his vehement contention that the
complainants ought to have resorted to filing of civil suits against
these petitioners for recovery of money but, the criminal law is set
into motion for the said purpose, which is contrary to plethora of
judgments rendered by the Apex Court and of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
complainants in all these cases would vehemently contend that
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, not today, but are throughout in the
same business. They have common modus operandi. They trace
and track persons who need funds and assure them that they would
resolve their problem and get money transferred into their
accounts. Every one of them is a bogus company that is registered.
In one voice all the learned counsel would contend that the moment
the crimes are registered, the petitioners are before the Court. The
matters are serious and interim orders are obtained projecting that
26
it is purely a money transaction between the parties and the crimes
are registered for the purpose of recovery of money. The learned
counsel would submit that it is not only for recovery of money but
these cases are crimes against Society as every person is getting
hoodwinked. They would submit that merely because it has a flair
of civil remedy that would not mean that crimes cannot be
permitted to be registered. They would seek dismissal of the
petitions.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Smt. Rashmi
Jadhav would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for
the complainants in seeking that investigation in these cases is a
must. The bail applications filed by these petitioners are all
rejected, but there is an interim order operating in the cases at
hand which has stopped any investigation to be conducted as
petitions are preferred immediately and coordinate Benches have
granted interim orders of stay in each of the cases.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
27
8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events, nature
of crimes are all as per the averments in the petitions. It would
suffice for this Court at this juncture to notice the complaints made
by respective complainants in each of the petitions. They read as
follows:
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2025
"From,
Siddharth Mohan, Age 30
Son of: Sri Rakesh Kumar
C-3, Sector A, Aliganj
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Phone number: 8795555111
E-mail ID: [email protected].
To,
Station House Officer,
CEN Crime Police Station
2nd Floor, MUDA Building,
Urvastores, Mangaluru.
Sir/Madam,
Subject: Regarding Roshan Saldana, Smt. Daffny Neetu
D'Souza, R.K. Nayak, and Subhash, who defrauded
Dr. Anubha Yadav of Rs. 10,14,67,900/- (Ten
Crores, Fourteen Lakhs, Sixty-Seven Thousand, Nine
Hundred Rupees) by giving false promises of
property sale.
28
I am a resident of the above-mentioned address and am I a
businessman. Dr.Anubha Yadav is my cousin sister and she is
not keeping well and hence l am authorised to file this complaint
on behalf of her and I know the facts of the complaint. Dr.
Anubha Yadav to file this complaint. Dr. Anubha Yadav, was in
the process of purchasing property in Mangaluru, she was
introduced to a person named Roshan Saldana through a broker
named Subhash. Roshan Saldana claimed ownership of a
property of the residential property of his house and property
surrounding his house and told her that it is for sale.
Consequently, on January 23, 2025, Dr.Anubha Yadav came to
Mangaluru and visited his house in Bajal. Roshan Saldana, his
wife Smt. Daffny Neetu D'Souza, his partner R.K. Nayak, and
two other individuals were present at his house.
Subsequently, in meetings held on March 17, 2025, March 31,
2025, and April 10, 2025, Roshan Saldana, Smt. Daffny Neetu
D'Souza, and R.K. Nayak were present. During this time, the
accused induced her to finalise the deal for a total sum of
Rs.10,00,00,000/-(Rupees ten crores).
Later, Dr: Anubha Yadav transferred Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Five
Crores) on April 2, 2025, from her HDFC Bank, Pranay Towers
Branch, Lucknow, Account No. 5010039572772, via RTGS with
UTR No. 0000000000000129, to Yahviivi Ventures Pvt Limited,
ICICI Bank, Account No. 248305500364, IFSC ICIC0002483,
Kochi Branch, as instructed by Roshan Saldana. Again, on April
15, 2025, she transferred another Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Five
Crores) with UTR No. 0000000000000130 to the above
mentioned account of to Yahviivi Ventures Pvt Limited as
instructed by Roshan Saldana, totaling a sum of Rs.
10,00,00,000/- (Ten Crores).
Later, when Dr. Anubha Yadav came to Mangaluru on April 10,
2025, Roshan Saldana and R.K. Nayak obtained her
photographs, ID card documents, 5 blank cheques, a 100-rupee
stamp paper, and her signature on a blank sheet on a pretext
for property registration and to pay stamp duty as claimed by
the accused. The accused then promised to send the agreement
via courier after the full payment was made.
After this, when Dr. Anubha Yadav called the accused to inquire
about the sale agreement, they sometimes answered the call
29
but would make new excuses and provide future dates, avoiding
their responsibility.
Subsequently, the accused called and demanded an additional
Rs.14,67,900/- for stamp duty, stating that the sale registration
would be done if this amount was paid. Accordingly, Dr. Anubha
Yadav who is the partner of M/S Health Plus Research & Medi
Center LLP, transferred Rs. 14,67,900/- via RTGS on May 6,
2025, from M/S Health Plus Research & Medi Center LLP A/c,
bearing Account No. 50200094202233, HDFC Bank, Sapru Marg
Branch, Lucknow, to the accused's named account Akshaya
Agency, IDFC First Bank, Hubballi Branch, Account. No.
10204249906.
Therefore, the accused have conspired to defrauded Dr. Anubha
Yadav of Rs. 10,14,67,900/-(Ten Crores, Fourteen Lakhs, Sixty-
Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Rupees) by giving false
promises of property sale, causing her loss.
Hence, a request is made to take appropriate legal action
against the accused.
Accused:
1) Roshan Saldana (42), Son of: John Saldana, Resident of:
House No. 1-30/20A, Bajaj Gudda House, Kankanady, Bajal,
Mangaluru.
2) Smt. Daffny Neetu D'Souza, Wife of: Roshan Saldana,
Resident of: House No. 1-30/20A. Bajaj Gudda House,
Kankanady, Bajal, Mangaluru.
3) R.K. Nayak (Advocate, Mangaluru)
4) Subhash, Mumbai"
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10880 OF 2025
To,
The Station House Officer
30
CEN Crime Police Station,
2nd Floor, MUDA Building,
Urwastore, Manguluru
From:
Jaikar Reddy Vedire, Aged 36 Years
S/o. V. Panduranga Reddy,
R/o. Villa No. 11, Aditya Royal Palm Villas
Shaikpet, Hyderabad.
Mobile-967-667-9999
E-mail - [email protected]
Respected Sir,
Sub: Complaint against (1) Roshan Saldanha
(2) Srinivas Reddy (3) Lalit (4) R.K. Naik
(5) Srinivas Diwakarla for committing acts of
fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust etc.
- Reg.
I, the undersigned, am a businessman and resident of
Hyderabad. I wish to submit the following facts for your kind
perusal:
1) I am into real estate business including construction and
selling of finished apartments and villas. During the
course of business, I was looking at raising loan for my
business needs. I was approached by an Agent, Mr.
Srinivas Diwakarla (Mobile Number - 80198-37581) in
Hyderabad. He introduced himself and suggested that
instead of going for loan from Nationalised Banks and/or
Private Banks, I should look at raising loan from Private
individuals by giving property as collateral at very low
annual interest rate from private lenders based in
Manguluru, Karnataka.
2) Consequently, he introduced me to one person named Mr.
Lalit (Mobile Number -84510-71871) based out of
Manguluru and spoke with him on 22.01.2025 and he
invited me to visit him. Accordingly I traveled to
Manguluru on 23.01.2025 where I met Mr. Roshan
31
Saldanha (Mobile Number - 84949-45686) and Mr.
Srinivas Reddy who introduced himself as the owner of
M/s. Saibaba Finance Company based out of Chitradurga,
Karnataka. I was at Moogambika Temple and after my
darshan I was picked up by these three individuals and
taken to a location (Jeppinmogeru) in Manguluru for a
meeting. At the meeting Roshan Saldanha explained the
process of financing that is done by them:
a. He stated that first I should provide details
of the property that I would be giving as
collateral to enable them to undertake due
diligence and local verification. He assured
that this process would take about 15-20
days.
b. Once they get legal clearance and they are
satisfied of my credentials through local
verification, then they would forward the
necessary paperwork for execution and
transfer of money.
c. He further stated that the interest rate
charged by them would be 4% per annum
and the amount being given on loan would
be in cash/bank transfer.
d. They knew that I was looking for a loan
amount of Rs.100 Crores and he explained
that they believe in transparency and
security of both parties. As such I should
provide property collateral for Rs.150 Crores
and that the documents should be executed
here in Manguluru on Stamp Papers
purchased from Government of Karnataka.
He further explained that the Stamp Duty is
1% of the loan amount.
e. At the meeting they explained that the Due
Diligence would be conducted by one Mr.
P.P. Hegde, Advocate (Mobile Number-
88619-37597) in Manguluru and that I
32
should quote reference number of '457' in all
communication with him.
f. At the end of the meeting I provided
documents for the property I was offering as
collateral and then left to Hyderabad.
3) Thereafter, I returned to Hyderabad and after about a
week I received a call from the number purportedly
belonging to Mr. P.P. Hegde and the person said that
preliminary verification was satisfactory and that further
scrutiny would be conducted by Mr. R.K. Naik (Mobile
Number-88842-79364). After a few days I received a call
from Mr. R.K. Naik stating that the legal scrutiny is
complete and that the property documents were found to
be satisfactory and he further advised me to travel to
Manguluru to undertake further process with Mr. Roshan
Saldanha and others.
4) Consequently, I traveled to Manguluru on 01.03.2025 for
clarifications regarding the documents sent by them in
the name of M/s. Saibaba Finance Company and met with
Roshan Saldana, Srinivas Reddy and Lalit at the residence
of Roshan Saldanha. There Roshan Saldana again
explained the process once again in the following
manner:
a. That since the scrutiny of property
documents was satisfactory, the next step
was to enter into Loan Agreement and other
ancillary documents to enable them to do
the processing
b. That as per the Karnataka laws, Stamp Duty
payable was 1% of loan amount and to avoid
reporting to IT Department, he suggested
that multiple agreements would be entered
into of Rs.49,00,000/- so that the stamp
duty paid for each agreement/stamp paper
was Rs.49,000/- and there would not be any
reporting to IT Department. They even
showed sample Stamp Papers purchased for
other persons like me. The loan amount
33
would be part cash and part bank transfer
depending upon availability of funds with
them.
c. That the loan amount was for Rs.100 Crores
with stamp duty coming to Rs.1 Crore.
d. That once the date was finalised for entering
into of the loan agreement, Roshan Saldanha
said he would be visiting my house/office in
Hyderabad and then confirming to cash
handling company, CMS', who would deliver
the cash or transfer directly to my
home/office in Hyderabad.
e. That the term of the loan was for either 3 or
6 or 9 years. The interest on the loan was to
be paid on quarterly or half yearly basis.
f. That the stamp papers were cancellable and
the amount refunded if I had a change of
mind and wanted cancellation of the loan
within first Six (6) months of entering into of
the Agreement.
g. That I would be holding the signed
agreements with me in Hyderabad and give
them to Roshan Saldanha at the time of CMS
delivering the cash to me in Hyderabad.
5) Believing his words, I returned to Hyderabad and was
making arrangements for paying Rs.1 Crore towards
Stamp Duty charges. Thereafter, on 03.03.2025, Roshan
Saldanha sent me details of a Bank Account stating that it
belonged to the Stamp Vendor who would be issuing the
Stamp Papers. He provided me the details of one M/s.
Akshaya Agencies with A/c No. 10204249906 | IFSC -
IDFB0080281 | Bank Name-IDFC Bank | Branch -
Hubbali. On 04.03.2025, I transferred a sum of Rs.50
Lakhs from my personal account held with SBI Bank,
reference Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad with RTGS
reference number SBINR52025030477304921. On
11.03.2025 I transferred a further sum of Rs.50 Lakhs
34
from my personal account with RTGS reference number
SBINR52025031178094574. Thus, at Roshan Saldanha's
direction, I transferred total of Rs.1 Crore to the Bank
account of M/s. Akshaya Agencies. I came to Manguluru
on 06.03.2025 to meet Roshan Saldanha and discuss the
loan arrangements. He kept promising me that the entire
money would be transferred at once and he further
obtained my signature on 5 Blank papers as well as five
(5) signed blank cheques as security [Cheque numbers-
848150 to 848154 drawn on SBI Bank, Barkatpura
Branch, Hyderabad).
6) Since then Roshan Saldana and his group have been
giving one pretext or the other and kept dragging the
matter by giving reasons such as someone died in Mr.
Srinivas Reddy's family and that they are in mourning and
thereafter that cash was being arranged. Majority of the
phone calls were on WhatsApp mobile application. For the
past few days there is no response to my calls from any
of the above persons.
7) It is clearly evident that (1) Roshan Saldanha (2) Srinivas
Reddy (3) Lalit (4) R.K. Naik (5) Srinivas Diwakarla are
preying on gullible people like me under the guise of
getting loan at low interest rate. The entire modus
operandi is clearly reflective of a well oiled machine being
kept in place by these unscrupulous elements. Therefore,
I request your good self to kindly look into the issue and
do the needful to ensure my hard earned money is
recovered from them. I have been trying to contact all
the above persons telephonically over the past several
weeks, however they were either not responding or giving
vague and evasive answers and dragging the matter.
Therefore, having realized that I have been defrauded by
the above persons by hatching a conspiracy, I am
approaching your good self to take appropriate action
against the said individuals and recover my money. The
addresses of accused, as known to me, are as follows:
a. Roshan Saldanha S/o Jon Saldanha
Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Business
R/o. No 1-30/20A, Bajaj Gudda House,
Kanakanady Bajal, Mangalore,
35
Dakshina Kannada - 575 027
Mobile number-84949-45686
b. Srinivas Reddy S/o Not Known
Age-Not Known, R/o. Manguluru &
Chitradurga
c. Lalit S/o Not Known
Aged about 32 Years, R/o Manguluru
Mobile number-84510-71871
d. R.K. Naik S/o Not Known
Age-Not known, R/o Manguluru
Mobile Numbers-88619-37597 & 88842-
79364
e. Srinivas Diwakarla S/o Not Known
Age-Not Known, R/o. Hyderabad
Mobile number-80198-37581
8) I am attaching copies of all transactional documents and
screenshots of messages etc., for your ready reference
and further action. For this act of yours, I shall be
eternally grateful."
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11550 OF 2025
"To,
Station House Officer
C.E.N Crime Police Station
Mangaluru City
Mangaluru
From,
Rajiv Sharma Age:58 Years
S/o Shamlal Sharma
R/o Flat no: 502 Marble Arch
94 Pali Hill Bandra, Bandra West Mumbai
36
Maharashtra State Pin Code:400050
Mob: 9820055525
Gmail: [email protected]
Dear Sir,
Subject : Regarding the fraud committed by Roshan
Saldana and others by taking
Rs. 2,08,10,600/- from me in the name of
stamp duty charge in the name of
sanctioning a loan to me and not sanctioning
the loan.
*****
In relation to the above matter, I reside with my family at
the above address and run a garment factory named Samrat
Group in Andheri Industrial Area, Mumbai. I need money for
more investment in my garment factory, and my acquaintance
Rakesh Singh gave me the mobile numbers of agents Jaiswal
and Deepak Sharma and told me that he would talk to them and
sanction a loan for me. When I called Deepak Sharma in
February 2025, he asked me to come to Roshan Saldana home,
1 came to Mangalore on 20-02-2025, I stayed at Hotel Taj
Vivanta, then Roshan Saldhana wife Daphne Saldhana came and
left me at Roshan Saldhana’s house in Jappinamogaru,
Mangalore. At home, Roshan Saldhana, R.K. Naik, Deepak
Sharma, Jaiswal and Srinivas Reddy were present and when I
inquired about the loan of 25 crores, Roshan Saldana and
Jaiswal said that if your documents are correct, which we left
with him he will review the documents and all approved he can
sanction up to 100 cores with in 15 days. He said money was
coming from janardhan reddy group and the person in the
meeting who approve and sanction the loan 100 cores along
with him was Mr.Srinivas reddy Brother in law of Janardhan
reddy. At this time, there was no mention of the stamp paper.
Then I left for Mumbai. Dated: 05-03-2025, I came to
Mangalore and went to Roshan Saldana’s house and gave all the
original documents. Roshan Saldana checked all the documents
and said that even though I need 25 cores, you can give me a
loan of 100 cores. It was said that it was approved, and I
agreed to it, if the loan money was to be deposited into your
account at that time, I was told that 2% Stamp duty should be
paid to the Karnataka government, and accordingly I agreed to
pay the Stamp duty.
37
Then on date: 07-03-2025, I went back to Mumbai. Then
Roshan Saldana called me through Whats App and gave me the
bank account details and asked me to deposit the money
Akshaya agencies for stamp duty against loan disbursal I told
him we will deposit directly government portal, but he refused
the same and sent me details of his company Akshaya Agencies
saying due to procedure and cash issues all stamp duty paid by
Akshaya Agencies and stamp duty paper will be in the name of
ritu Sharma and Rajiv Sharma. Accordingly, on date: 09-03-
2025, I came to Mangaluru with my wife and stayed at Taj
Vivanta Hotel, On date: 10-03-2025 in the morning, I
transferred Rs 50 lakhs online to the bank account mentioned
by Roshan Saldana, then after talking to Roshan Saldana over
the phone, my wife and I went to his house. During the
conversation, Roshan Saldana had asked me to transfer all the
money mentioned for the stamp duty and then we stayed at the
Taj Vivanta Hotel, so I transferred the remaining amount of Rs 1
core 50 lakhs online on 11-03-2025. Then when I went to
Roshan Saldana house at 5:00 pm, he showed me the stamp
paper and told me that he would send the stamp paper to the
hotel, that the money transfer process would be completed and
that Rs 60 core would be paid in cash and Rs 40 core by
cheque. Then when I reached the hotel, he said that it would be
late for the transfer the money to my account has bank was
closed. The next day he told us to wait and said that Mr. R.K
Naik would give the transfer details by evening, when we kept
calling him for the transfer details he said there was some
signature issue at the bank and will happen the next day. We
were in Mangalore for two or three days and when I inquired
about the loan money, the he said that there would be a delay
in processing the money. Because Mr. Srinvivas Reddy signature
was required on more documents by the Bank. They said that
they would give it to me tomorrow. Since I had to go to Europe
for urgent work and had to leave Mangalore for Mumbai on 14-
03-2025. Later when I Called Roshan Saldana he said R. K. Naik
Completing the Transaction, When I called R.K. Naik said that
his bank account was frozen and that he would transfer the
money to our account from overseas from London, Roshan
Saldana and R.K Naik kept telling me that they were
transferring money from Germany and London. On 21-03-2025,
R.K. Naik called and told me that Indian bank account now
operational and said that since he was transferring a large
38
amount of money, bank insurance was required and I had to
transfer Rs. 8,10,500/-immediately. Accordingly, I transferred
Rs. 8,10,600/- by the afternoon of 21-03-2025. When I called
later, he said that the money would be transferred by 5:00 PM
that day. Then at 6:00 PM, R.K. Naik messeged me through
Whats App and informed me that the process of transferring Rs.
40 cores would be underway on Monday. Later, he kept giving
similar excuses. When he called again after few days and told
me that if I wanted the entire 100 core in One shot, then I Must
pay Additional 01 Core, upfront, which I refused. which I So
daily I was following up with roshan and RK Naik and they kept
Avoiding Phone call and when did pick up they gave excuses,
like Mr. Srinivas Reddy Father died so two to three Weeks all
closed, they re travelling etc. I realized that I was been cheated.
Therefore, I transferred Roshan Saldana, Rs 2,08, 10,600
through RTGS in stages till 10-03-2025, assured me that he
would sanction a loan of 100 crores to my wife Ritu Sharma Ac
No: 05921930001948 and My Ac No: 05921930001921 Dated:
10-3-2025 Το 21-03-2025.
The details of the bank accounts through which I
transferred the money are as follows:
Hence Roshan Saldana 8494945686, R. K. Naik
8884279364, 8861937597, Rakesh Singh 9771475398, Deepak
Sharma 9810474939. Jaiswal D.K. 9819303444 and Roshan
Saldana’s wife Daphne Saldana 94837239622 and Srinivas
reddy. I filed this complaint today little late as I believed their
promise to I have called and messaged Roshan Saldana and
R.K. Naik inquired daily sanction the loan. I Request to take
appropriate legal action against them.”
39
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11697 OF 2025
“To,
Station House Officer
Kankanady Town Police Station,
Mangalore.
From:
Nandini Y N,
W/o Late Raghuram,
Aged 45 years,
No. 1, 9th Main, ‘Kamadhenu Nilaya’
M.V Marg, Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Chennammanakatte Achukattu,
Bangalore – 560 085.
9164111999
Sir,
1. I, Nandini Y N, a widow, do hereby lodge a complaint
against (1) Sri. Roshan Saldanha, resident of #43,
Bollugudde, Bajal in Mangalore, (2) Sri Girish, (3) Suresh
Pai: No.2 & 3 are close associates of Sri Roshan
Saldanha, who have colluded with each other and cheated
me to an extent of Rs. 14,74,900/-, on the pretext of
providing loan facility.
Summary of the Complaint
2. I got in touch with a person called Suresh Pai through
Face book, captioned as ‘Loan Provider’. As I was in
financial troubles after the death of my husband; my
husband during his lifetime had borrowed loan from Yes
Bank to an extent of Rs. 3.5 Crores, (Document of loan
details is annexed herewith).
3. Sri Suresh Pai exchanged Phone Number through Face
book and further introduced me to one Mr. Girish, who is
an associate of Sri Roshan Saldanha and promised that
40
Sri Girish and Roshan Saldanha shall help in getting loan
for me based on collateral security; when I asked them
about their place of business, they communicated that
they are doing business in Mangalore in the of Balaji
Enterprises.
4. I was called to Mangalore for further discussions
regarding loan facility and they gave an appointment to
meet them at his residence at Mangalore in the month of
May 2025. Accordingly, I being a widow, my brother-in-
law, Mr. Harish accompanied me along with my younger
brother, R Harsha to Mangalore on 22.5.2025, and we
met Sri Roshan Saldanha at his residence Bajal Mangalore
through Mr. Girish and they assured that they will make
arrangement for loan at the earliest. Further, Mr Roshan
Saldanha informed that he will charge 2% amounting to
Rs. 12 Lakhs as stamp duty and Rs. 3 Lakhs for insurance
upon the loan amount of Rs. 6 Crores and he further
stated that one Srinivasa Reddy shall fund money to me
on the above mentioned terms. As I agreed, Mr. Roshan
Saldanha asked us to meet them in the month of June
2025 for further development of the loan.
5. I had been to Mangalore again to meet the above
personnel along with my relatives, as mentioned above in
the 2nd week of June; met Mr.Roshan Saldanha at his
home office Bajal and he informed that my loan has been
processed and the loan account No. is 673. I shall be
liable to pay 2% of loan amount towards stamp duty and
Rs. 3 Lakhs as insurance charges, at the earliest.
6. Later on, I was called to Mangalore informing me that the
loan has been sanctioned and I should bring an amount of
Rs. 14,74,900/- on 20th June, 2025 (I gave them Rs. 12
Lakhs in Cash at his residence and Rs. 2,74,900/- was
transferred through online, as insurance charges; the said
amount was accrued through pledging mine and my
brother’s gold ornaments at Federal Bank, Jayanagar
Branch. A copy of the pledged details is annexed to this
Complaint. Mr. Roshan Saldanha borrowed 5 blank
cheques and took signature on 24 Nos. of stamp paper,
(each stamp paper’s value being Rs. 49,000/-) and
41
assured that as the loan has been sanctioned, it will be
credited to my account in about 2 weeks’ time.
Further, I issued them 5 blank cheque leaves duly signed
by me, drawn on Federal Bank, the cheque Nos is
mentioned as below
i) 375454
ii)375455
iii)375456
iv) 375457
v) 375458
7. After 2 weeks, when we consulted Mr Roshan Saldanha &
Mr. Girish, they assured that due to some legal
complications, the task could not be completed; they shall
transfer the sanctioned amount within a week and later
on, he switched off his phone and I came to know that I
have been cheated by Mr. Roshan Saldanha, Mr. Girish &
Mr. Suresh Pai.
I request your good-self that I being a widow and already
having to clear my husband’s loan amount to the tune of Rs. 3.5
Crores and I am in huge debt to pay interest on the previous
loan and I have been made falsely to trust Mr. Roshan Saldanha
and Mr. Girish. These persons, with mala fide intention, have
cheated me by making wrongful gain and my amount of Rs.
14,74,900/- is required to be recovered from them and
appropriate legal action shall be initiated against the above said
persons.”
Petitioner – accused No.1 has obtained an amount of
`14,74,900/-, from the complainant on the pretext of sanctioning
loan of `6/- crores.
42
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11788 OF 2025
"ಇವ ೆ,
ೕ ೕ ಕರು
ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ತ ದುಗ .
ಇಂದ :
ಮಂಜು ಾ .ಆ ತಂ!ೆ "ಾಮ"ೆ#$, 57 ವಷ ,
"ೆ#$ ಜ ಾಂಗ, &ಾ '( ೕ) *+ ೆ ,
,ಾಸ #107, 1 ೇ .ೕ', 2 ೇ /ಾ , "ಾಯ1 /ೌಂ3 4ೇ ಔ),
ಪರಪ7ನ ಅಗ 9ಾರ, ಎ4ೆ/ಾ; < =3 ೕ >,
?ೆಂಗಳAರು -560100 .ªÉÆ.£ÀA. : 9845068515
BಾನC”ೇ,
Dಷಯ : 4ೋ’ /ೊ#ಸುವF!ಾG ನನHನುH ನಂ*=, ನನ ೆ Iೕಸ Bಾ#ರುವ
1)”ೋಷ’ Jಾ4ಾC’ 2) ಮಂಜು ಾ 3) K.K 9ೆ ೆ$ ಎಂಬುವರ
DರುದM /ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರುGಸಲು /ೋ .
*****
ಾನು .ೕಲOಂಡ DQಾಸದ R ,ಾಸ,ಾGದುS, &ಾ ‘( ೕ) /ೆಲಸ Bಾ#/ೊಂ#ರುTೆUೕ ೆ.
ನನ ೆ ನನH ,ಾCVಾರದ ಅWವೃYM ಾG 9ೆಚು[ವ \ಾG ನನ ೆ 20 /ೋ3 ಹಣದ ಅವಶCಕTೆ
ಇದುSದ ಂದ, ಾನು ನನ ೆ ಪ ಚಯDದS 4ೋ’ /ೊ#ಸುವ ಏaೆಂ) /ೆಲಸ BಾಡುbUದS ಮಂಜು ಾ
ಎಂಬುವರನುH ಒ.d eೇ3\ಾG ಎ R\ಾದರೂ ನನ ೆ Jಾಲ /ೊ#= ಎಂದು /ೇf/ೊಂgಾಗ ಅವರು
ನನ ೆ ತ ದು ಗ ನಗರದ R ,ಾಸ,ಾGರುವ ನನ ೆ ಪ ಚಯರDರುವ “ೋಶ’ Jಾ4ಾ$’ ರವರು ಆ=U,
.ೕ4ೆ 4ೋ’ /ೊಡುTಾU”ೆ, ಮdನುH ಾನು ಒ.d ತ ದುಗ /ೆO ಕ”ೆದು/ೊಂಡು 9ೋG “ೋಶ’
ಅವರನುH ಪ ಚಯ Bಾ#ಸುTೆUೕ ೆ, ೕವF ಅವರ ಬf Bಾತ ಾ# ಎಂದು 9ೇfರುTಾU”ೆ. ಆಗ ಾನು
ಆhತು ಎಂದು 9ೇfದುS ಮಂಜು ಾ ರವರು ನನHನುH 2023 ೇ Jಾ ನ Jೆಪ>ಂಬ bಂಗfನ R
Iದಲ ೇ ,ಾರದ R ನನHನುH ತ ದುಗ /ೆO ಕ”ೆದು/ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು /ೋ&ೆ ರJೆUಯ Rರುವ i ೕ Jಾh
ಕನ(4ೆ>ಂ) ಆjೕ ೆ ಕ”ೆದು /ೊಂಡು 9ೋGದುS ಅ R ಆjೕ ನ R “ೋಷ’ Jಾ4ಾ$’ ಮತುU K,K
9ೆ ೆ$ ಇರುTಾU”ೆ. ಮಂಜು ಾ ರವರು ನನ ೆ ಅವರುಗಳನುH ಪ ಚಯ Bಾ#/ೊ3>ದುS ಾನು ಅವರ
43
ೆಸರು ೇ ಾಗ ಒಬ ರು ತನ ೆಸರು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ, ಾ ೈ ಾ ನ ಾ ೇ ಂ” #ೈ ೆಕ%
& ಾ ೇ ಎಂದು ಪ*ಚ , ೊಂಡರು, ಮ/ೊ0ಬ ರು ತನ ೆಸರು 1.1. ೆ2ೆ, ಾ ೈ ಾ 3ೕಗ4
ಅ#ೆ6ೖಸ& ಎಂದು ೇ 7,8ಂ” ಾ9: ೊಟು% ಪ*ಚ , ೊಂಡರು.
ಾನು ಅವರುಗ 2ೆ ನನ2ೆ 20 ೋ8 ಹಣದ ಅವಶ ಕ/ೆ ಇರುತ0 ೆ ನನ2ೆ ೋ ೊA
ಎಂದು ೇ ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳC ಾವD Eಮ2ೆ 50 ೋ8 ೋ ೊಡು/ೆ0ೕFೆ ಆದ ೆ ಅದ ೆH Iದಲು
EೕವD 2% ಾ%ಂK ೋಟ* LೕM ಕಟ%Nೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇ ದುO ಾಗೂ EೕವD ಾಲ ೆH ಾPೆQೕ:R
ಾA ೊಳSಲು EಮT U3ಂ” 2ೆ ಸಂಬಂV,ದ ಾಖ ಾXಗಳನು ತಂದು ೊA, ಾವDಗಳC
ಾಖ ಾXಗಳನು ಪ*Yೕ3, ೋA 15 Zನಗಳ3[ ೋ ೊಡು/ೆ0ೕFೆ ಎಂದು X ,ದರು. ಾ2ಾ\
ಾನು ನನ ೆಂಡXಯ ೆಸ*ನ3[ರುವ ಆ,0ಯ ಾಖ ಾXಗಳನು ೊPೆ%ನು. ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನ2ೆ 15
Zನಗಳ ಒಳ2ೆ ೋ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾA, ತ_ಣ Eಮ2ೆ ಕ ೆ ಾA X ಸು/ೆ0ೕFೆಂದು ೇ ನನ ನು
ಕಳC`,ದರು.
ೆaೆ%ಂಬ& Xಂಗಳ3[ ನನ2ೆ ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಮತು0 1.1, ೆ2ೆ ಇಬ ರೂ ಕ ೆ ಾA ಾ
ೈ ಾ Eಂದ Eಮ2ೆ ೋ ಮಂಜೂ ಾ\ ೆ. EೕವDಗಳC Z ಾಂಕ:25-09-2023 ರಂದು
bತcದುಗ:ದ ಾ ೈ ಾ 2ೆ ಬE , ಬರುFಾಗ EಮT ೆಸ*ನ3[ರುವ Nಾ ಂd eಾ/ೆಯ ಸ`
ಾAರುವ 10 eಾ3 fೆd ಾgೆಗಳC, EಮT ೆಂಡXಯ ೆಸ*ನ3[ರುವ Nಾ ಂd eಾ/ೆಯ ಸ`
ಾAರುವ 6 eಾ3 fೆd ಾgೆಗಳC, ಆhಾ& ಾ9:, aಾ ಾ9: ಗಳ ನಕಲನು ತE ಎಂದು
ೇ ದOರು. ಅದರಂ/ೆ ಾನು, ಏjೆಂk ಆದ ಮಂಜು ಾl, ನನ ೆಂಡX ಸ7ತ, ನನ ಾZE ಸುmತ
ಮತು0 ನಮT ಸಂಬಂZ ಚಂದcnೇಖ& ೆA ರವರುಗಳC Z ಾಂಕ:25-09-2023 ರಂದು Nೆ 2ೆQ 11-00
ಸು ಾ*2ೆ ಾವDಗಳC bತcದುಗ: ನಗರದ ಾ ೈ ಾ 2ೆ ಬಂZದುO ಅವರುಗಳC X ,ದಂ/ೆ ನನ
HDFC Nಾ ಂd, ಎ ೆ ಾoEd ,8 Nಾcಂp ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 05491930005700 eಾ/ೆಯ ಸ`
ಾAರುವ 10 eಾ3 fೆd ಾgೆಗಳC, ನನ ೆಂಡXಯ ೆಸ*ನ3[ರುವ HDFC Nಾ ಂd,
ೋರಮಂಗಲ Nಾcಂp ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 50100238294491 eಾ/ೆಯ ಸ` ಾAರುವ fೆd
ನಂಬ&: 000120 *ಂದ 000125 ರವ ೆ\ನ 6 eಾ3 fೆd ಾgೆಗಳC ಾಗೂ ಆ,02ೆ ಸಂಬಂV,ದ
ಎ ಾ[ ಾಖ ಾXಗಳನು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಾಗೂ 1.1. ೆ2ೆ ಇವ*2ೆ ೊPೆ%ನು. ಆಗ ೋಷ ಾ
ಾ ಾನ ಅವDಗಳನು ಪ*Yೕ3,ದ ನಂತರ ನನ2ೆ rಾವD ೋ ಒಂದು ಇ- ಾ%sಂK ತರಹದ ಪತcವನು
/ೋ*, ಈ ತರಹದ 49,000/- ರೂaಾ ಗಳ ಒಂದರಂ/ೆ ಒಟು% 200 ಇ- ಾ%sಂK ಪತcಗಳನು 1 ೇ
aಾ8: ಮಂಜು ಾl.ಆ& ಎಂದು 2 ೇ aಾ8: ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಎಂಬ ೆಸ*2ೆ /ೆ2ೆಸNೇಕು. Eಮ2ೆ
Eೕಡುವ ೋ 50 ೋ8 ಆ\ರುವDದ*ಂದ ಅದರ 2% ಹಣದ ಇ- ಾ%sಂK ಪತcಗ 2ೆ
1,00,00,000/-ರೂ(ಒಂದು ೋ8) ಹಣವನು Nಾ ಂd ಅ ೌಂk 2ೆ ಾv ಎಂದು X ,ದOರು. ಅದರಂ/ೆ
ಾನು 1,00,00,000/-(ಒಂದು ೋ8) ಹಣವನು ೊಂZ, Z ಾಂಕ:25-09-2023 ರಂದು ನನ
ೆಂಡX ಸ7ತರವರ ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 917010054824335 Eಂದ bತcದುಗ: IDFC First
44
Bank, Sri Sai Consultant ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&:10135390504 2ೆ ಒಟು% 40,00,000/- ಹಣವನು
ಾಗೂ ಅ ೇ Zನ ಾನು ನನ ೆ ೕ`ತ ಾದ ಕೃಷx ೆA ರವರ K.R Enterprises ೆ.ಆ&. ಪDರಂ,
Nೆಂಗಳyರು ರವರ ಕ ೆಂk ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 9647000600001001 *ಂದ bತcದುಗ: IDFC
First Bank, Sri Sai Consultant ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 10135390504 2ೆ ಒಟು% 50,00,000/-
ಹಣವನು RTGS ಾAರು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ ಾಗೂ Z ಾಂಕ:26-09-2023 ರಂದು ನನ ೆಂಡX ಸ7ತರವರ
ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&:917010054824335 Eಂದ bತcದುಗ: IDFC First Bank, Sri Sai
Consultant ಅ ೌಂk ನಂಬ&: 10135390504 2ೆ ಒಟು% 10,00,000/- ಹಣವನು RTGS
ಾAರು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ ಒಟು% ಾನು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಾಗೂ 1.1. ೆ2ೆ ರವರು X ,ದಂ/ೆ 1,00,00,000/-
(ಒಂದು ೋ8) ಹಣವನು ಆ&.8. .ಎM ಾAದುO ಅವರುಗಳC Z ಾಂಕ:27-09-2023 ರಂದು ಾನು
ಮತು0 ನನ ೆಂಡXಯ ಹX0ರ eಾ3 ಾ%sಂK aೇಪ& zೕ ೆ ನಮTಗಳ ಸ` ಮತು0 ೆNೆ 8%ನ ಗುರುತು
ಾv, ೊಂAದುO ಅವರುಗಳC ನಮ2ೆ ಇನು 15 Zನಗಳ3[ ಾವDಗಳC ೇ ದಂ/ೆ Eಮ2ೆ ೋ
ಆಗುತ0 ೆ, ಅದರ3[, ಸ6ಲ{ ಹಣವನು ಅ ೌಂk ಮೂಲಕ Eೕಡು/ೆ0ೕFೆ. ಉ ದ ಹಣವನು ನಗದು ರೂಪದ3[
Eೕಡು/ೆ0ೕFೆ ಎಂದು X , EೕವDಗಳC ೋ\ ಎಂದು ೇ ದO*ಂದ ಾವDಗಳC ಅವರುಗಳ ಾತುಗಳನು
ನಂU Nೆಂಗಳy*2ೆ ೊರಟು ಬಂZರು/ೆ0ೕFೆ.
ಾನು 15 ZನಗಳC ಾದು ೋAದರೂ ನನ2ೆ rಾವD ೇ *ೕXಯ }ೕ ಕ ೆ
ಬಂZರುವDZಲ[, ಾ ೇ ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಮತು0 1.1 ೆ2ೆ ರವ*2ೆ ~ೕ ಾA ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳC
ಹಬ ಇ ೆ ಹಬ ಮು\ದ ನಂತರ Eಮ2ೆ ೋ ಆಗುತ0 ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ರು/ಾ0 ೆ. ಹಲFಾರು Nಾ* ಕ ೆ
ಾAದರೂ ಸಹ ಸಬೂಬು ೇಳCತ0 ೇ ಬಂZರು/ಾ0 ೆ. Z ಾಂಕ: 17-07-2025 ರಂದು ೋಷ
ಾ ಾನ ಈತನ zೕ ೆ Iೕಸ ಾAದ ೇಸುಗಳC ಾಖ ಾ\Fೆ ಎಂದು 8.7.ನೂ M ನ3[ ಬಂZದOನು
ಾನು ೋAದುO ನನಗೂ ಸಹ ಇವ ೆಲ[ರೂ ೇ* ಾಲ ೊAಸುವD ಾ\ ನಂU, 50 ೋ8 ಾಲ
ೊಡಲು 2% ನಂತರ ಇ- ಾ%ಂK ನ3[ ಅ\czಂk ಾA ೊಡುವD ಾ\ ನE ಂದ 1,00,00,000/-
(ಒಂದು ೋ8) ಹಣವನು ಪ#ೆದು ೊಂಡು ನನ2ೆ Iೕಸ ಾA ಾO ೆಂದು X ತು,
ನನ2ೆ 50 ೋ8 ಾಲವನು ೊಡುವD ಾ\ ನಂU, ನE ಂದ 1,00,00,000/-(ಒಂದು
ೋ8) ಹಣವನು ಪ#ೆದು ಾಲವನು ೊಡ ೇ, ನE ಂದ ಪ#ೆದ ಹಣವನು FಾaಾM ೊಡ ೇ ನನ2ೆ
Iೕಸ ಾAರುವ ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ, ಮಂಜು ಾl ಮತು0 1.1 ೆ2ೆ ಮತು0 ರವರ 7ರುದ• ಾನೂನು
ಕcಮ ಜರು\, ನಮ2ೆ ಾ ಯ ಒದ\, ೊಡNೇ ೆಂದು ೋ* ಎಂದು ತಡFಾ\ ಈ Zನ ಬಂದು ದೂರು
EೕAರು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ.”
The complainant in the afore-quoted crime, has approached
the petitioner on the score that he required capital for his business
45
development and the petitioner projecting himself as the Managing
Director of one Sri Sai Consultants has taken an amount of `1/-
crore from the complainant.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11918 OF 2025
"ಇವ*2ೆ,
~3ೕM ಇ aೆಕ%&
ನಗರ ~3ೕM •ಾ‚ೆ, bತcದುಗ:
ಇಂದ,
Fೈ.ಎ .ಕೃಷxಮೂX: ತಂ ೆ Fೈ ಎ ನರ,ಂಹಲು,
53 ವಷ:, ವ ವ ಾರ, #27/8/574, ಅರ7ಂದ ನಗರ, ಎಂ.ಆ&.ಪ3[,
`ಂದೂಪD& Pೌ , ಆಂದc ಪc ೇಶ ಾಜ , }ೕ ನಂ:9550575242
ಾನ ೇ,
7ಷಯ : ೋಷ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ U jಾ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ ಾಗೂ 7ಮ ೇƒ ಹX0 ೊಂಡ ರವರು
ನನ2ೆ ಾಲ ೊಡುವD ಾ\ ನಂU, ನE ಂದ 40,00,000/-ರೂaಾ ಗಳನು
ಪ#ೆದು FಾaಾM ೊಡ ೇ Iೕಸ ಾAರುವ ಬ2ೆQ ದೂರು.
*****
ಈ zೕಲHಂಡ 7ಷಯ ೆH ಸಂಬಂV,ದಂ/ೆ, Fೈ.ಎ . ಕೃಷxಮೂX: ಆದ ಾನು EೕಡುX0ರುವ
ದೂರು ಏ ೆಂದ ೆ, ಾನು ,4H ¸Áå* ತrಾ* ಾ ಕಂಪE ಾ3ೕಕ ಾ\ರು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ. ನನ2ೆ ನನ
ವ ವ ಾರವನು ಅ„ವೃZ•ಪAಸಲು ಾಗೂ ಗೃಹಕೃತ ದ ಖಚು:ಗ 2ೆ ಹಣದ ಅವಶ ಕ/ೆ ರುತ0 ೆ. 2023
ೇ ಾ3ನ3[ ನನ2ೆ Nೆಂಗಳy*ನ3[ ೈ ಾ ಕನ 4PೆE ನ#ೆ, ೊಂAರುವ 7ಮ ೇƒ ಹX0 ೊಂಡ
(I.ನಂ.9739538639) ಎಂಬುವವರು ಪ*ಚಯFಾ\ದುO, ಅವರ ಬ ಾನು ನನ2ೆ ಹಣದ
ಅವಶ ಕ/ೆ ರುವ 7fಾರವನು ೇ ಾಗ, ಅವರು ತನ ಪ*ಚಯಸ…ರು bತcದುಗ: ನಗರದ3[ ಾ
ೈ ಾ ನ#ೆ, ೊಂAದುO, ಅವರು Eಮ2ೆ ಾಲ Eೕಡು/ಾ0 ೆ. ಾನು ಹಣ ೊAಸು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು
ೇ ದOರು. ಆದO*ಂದ ಾನು ಾಗೂ 7ಮ ೇƒ ಹX0 ೊಂಡ ಇಬ ರೂ Z ಾಂಕ:23.10.2023 ರಂದು
46
Nೆ 2ೆQ 11.00 ಎಎಂ ಗಂPೆ2ೆ bತcದುಗ: ನಗರದ ೋPೆ ರ ೆ0ಯ3[ನ ಾ ೈ ಾ 2ೆ ೋ\ದುO,
ಕ†ೇ*ಯ3[ ಾ ೈ ಾ ನ ಾ ೇ ಂ” #ೈ ೆಕ%& ಆದ ೋಷ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ U jಾ ಸ¯ÁÝ
ನಹ, 1-30/20ಎ, ಬjಾ4 Nೊ ¯Áè ಗುಡ Nೊ ಾ, ಗುಡ ೌM, ಕಂಕಂA ಬjಾ4, ಮಂಗಳyರು
(ªÉÆ.£ÀA.8494945686) ಾಗೂ 3ೕಗ4 ಅ#ೆ6ೖಸ& 1.1. ೆಗQ#ೆ ಇವ*ಬ ರು ಇದOರು. ಇವರುಗಳನು
7ಮ ೇƒ ಹX0 ೊಂಡ ನನ2ೆ ಪ*ಚ ,ದರು.
ಅವರ ಬ ನನ ವ ವ ಾರವನು ಅ„ವೃZ• ಪAಸಲು ಾಗೂ ಗೃಹಕೃತ ದ ಖಚು:ಗ 2ೆ ಹಣದ
ಅವಶ ಕ/ೆ ರುವ ಬ2ೆQ ಾನು ೇ ೆನು. ಾವD ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾA ೊಡು/ೆ0ೕFೆ ಆದ ೆ EೕವD
ಾ%sಂK qÀÆånUÉ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, D ಹಣವನು EೕವD ತುಂಬNೇ ಾಗುತ0 ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ನನ2ೆ ಒಂಬತು0
ಾ%sಂK aೇಪ& ಗಳನ /ೋ*,, ಒಂದು ಾ%sಂK aೇಪ&2ೆ 49,000/ ರೂaಾ ಗgಾಗುತ0Fೆ, ನಮ2ೆ
ಒಟು% ಎಂಭತು0 ಾ%sಂK aೇಪ& ಗಳC Nೇ ಾ\ದುO ಅವDಗ 2ೆ ಒಟು% 39.20,000/- ಹಣಗಳC
ಖfಾ:ಗುತ0Fೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ನನ ಬ ಒಟು% 40,00,000/- ರೂaಾ ಗಳನು ನಗದು ಹಣ ಪ#ೆದು
ಅದ ೊಂZ2ೆ ನನ ಸ` ರುವ 10 ¨ÁèAd fೆdಗಳC, ಾ ಕ%* ಕ ಾರು ಪತc, ಆhಾ& ಾ9:, aಾ
ಾ9:, ಮತ ಾನ ಗುರುXನ bೕ8, aಾM~ೕk:, Fಾಹನ fಾಲ ೆ ಪರFಾE2ೆ ಪತc ಾಗೂ Nಾ ಂd
ೆ%ೕk zಂk, ನನ ಸ6ಂತ ಕ ಾ ಣಮಂಟಪ ಾಗೂ ನನ ಮ ೆ2ೆ ಸಂಬಂV,ದ ಾಖ ೆ ಪತcಗಳನು
ಪ#ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ಇನೂ 15 Zನಗಳ3[ ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆಗುತ0 ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ಕಳC`,ದರು. ಾನು
ಅ3[ಂದ ಇ3[ಯ ವ ೆ2ೆ ೋಷ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ ರವ*2ೆ }ೕ ಾA ನನ ಾಲ rಾFಾಗ
ಮಂಜೂ ಾಗುತ0 ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ದ ೆ ಇವತು0 ಾgೆ ಎಂದು ೇಳCತ0 ಬರುX0ದುO. 7ಮ ೇƒ ಹX0 ೊಂಡ
ರವ*2ೆ ೇ ದ ೆ ಅವರು ನನ2ೆ ಸ{ಂZಸುX0 ಾ[ ಆದO*ಂದ ನನ2ೆ ನಂU, ನE ಂದ 40 ಲ_ ನಗದು
ಹಣಪ#ೆದು ನನ2ೆ Iೕಸ ಾAದ ೋಷ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ U jಾ ಸ¯ÁÝನಹ ಾಗೂ 7ಮ ೇƒ
ಹX0 ೊಂಡ ರವರ 7ರುದ• ಸೂಕ0 ಾನೂನು ಕcಮ ಜರು\ಸಲು ೋರು/ೆ0ೕ ೆ.”
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12312 OF 2025
“To
The Station House Officer,
Kankanady Town Police Station,
Mangaluru City, Mangaluru.
From,
Navinchandra Patel, aged: 69 yrs,
S/o. Mangaldas Patel,
R/o. A1, Ground Floor,
47
Mayfair Garden, Little Gibbs Road,
Malabar Hill, Mumbai,
Maharashtra State- 400 006.
Phone Number: 98200 40048.
Sub: Complaint of Financial Fraud
I Navinchandra Patel adult indian inhabitant is a partners in
UMIYA INFRACON with my nephew Mr. Jayshiv Patel are into the
business of construction and development.
We say that since we are into the business of construction we
require funds for the purpose of development. We say that we
have our various projects throughout Mumbai and the projects
were halted due to the shortage of funds and therefore we
require to raise funds through loan to a tune of rupees 250
crores.
We say that for the said loan purposes we approached various
bankers but the interest loan too high we did not opt for the
said loan.
We say that looking into our needs of funds one of family friend
Mr. Parmar introduced us to one Ms. Vaishali Dixit who is into
the business of funding and finance under the name of Wajra
Financial Services.
We say that accordingly we set up the meeting and Vaishali
Dixit who visited our project site and office and told that she
would help me procure the loan amount of 250 crores that too
at the lower interest rate of 6% as she is into the said business
and she have done such transactions many times and have a
good approach with people in Mangalore who can provide the
loan and have succeeded in doing so and providing loan to
various individuals and business man throughout India.
Ms Dixit asked for all documents for our partnership and project
reports to get us approved for loan. Within few days she
informed us, they have done their due diligence and approved
our loan after perusal of our all documents and project reports
by their lawyer Mr. R.K. Nayak.
48
Mr. R.K. Nayak confirmed our loan approval through whatsapp
chat and call from his mobile No. 88842 79364.
We say that accordingly Ms Vaishali Dixit and another middle
man Mr Lalit set up meeting at Mangalore on 6th June 2025, at
12pm along with the person name Mr. Roshan who assured us
to provide the loan of 250 crores through one of their company
as they provide loan at low interest rates after executing loan
agreements and also payment of upfront 2% stamp duty i.e Rs.
5 crores.
We Visited Mangaluru again on 30th June 2025, to finalize the
agreement terms and conditions.
He shared through whats app the terms and conditions in the
Meeting with us at 12:30 on same day and finalized terms and
conditions.
We shared our agreement draft on 11th July through Whatsapp
Chat to Mr. Roshan and Ms. Vaishali Dixit
We say that as per the assurance we trusted the person and
also as per assurance of the agent Ms Vaishali Dixit we were
ready to procure the said loan as we were assured the loan
amount will be credited into the account of Umiya Infracon.
We say that we along with agent Ms. Vaishali Dixit and with my
nephew / partner Jayshiv Patel and our legal advisor Mr.
Prashanth Yadav from Mumbai visited to Mangalore on Tuesday
i.e 15th of july 2025, for finalization of loan deal and accordingly
we were picked up from the Hotel AJ Grand in Mangalore by his
person through a car and taken to the house of Mr Roshan at
same place and bunglow named Saldanha Compound in
Jappinamogru, Mangalore. One person by name Mr. Lalit was
also present there. That day discussions held about loan process
and transaction dispersement.
On 16th of July as per instructions we i.e myself, Ms. Vaishali
Dixit, Jayshiv Patel and Mr. Prashanth Yadav were picked up by
his person through car from AJ Garand Hotel to his house
Saldanha Compound. In the meeting we were introduced to Mr.
Srinivas Reddy as Roshan told that he is the financier for this
loan. There we were asked for KYC documents and 5 blank
49
checks as security for the loan. After submitting all the
documents we were asked to make the payment of stamp duty
of 2% amounting rupees 5 crores and thereafter the process will
be started to get stamps of Rs 49995/-each, total stamps will be
required approx 1000 stamps which would take time and the
loan amount will be credited into our account by Saturday 19th
July 2025 after signing the agreement. Thereafter returning to
hotel we were shared the account details from Mr. Roshan
through his whatsapp and the account in name of BALAJI
ENTERPRISES, details are:
Name: BALAJI ENTERPRISES
Account number: 10232658235
IFSC: IDFB0080281
SWIFT code: IDFBINBBMUM
Bank name: IDFC FIRST
Branch: HUBBALLI BRANCHAs per conditions we transferred the amount of Rs. 5 crores
through rigs/NEFT from our YES Bank account in the name of
UMIYA INFRACON, account No. 041963700001470, IFSC Code:
YESB0000419, YES Bank Lower Parel Bank, Mumbai-4000 013
on 16th of July 2025.
Below is the transaction details:
YES BANK AC X1470 debited for INR 10,000.00 on 16JUL25
13:57.
NEFT:YESIG51970046209/IDFB0080281-BALAJI E. Bal INR
5,06,01,111.00. Not U?
SMS BLKMB <CustID> to 9840909000
NEFT Transaction with reference number YESIG51970046209
for INR 10,000.00 has been credited to the beneficiary account
XXXXXXX8235 on 16-07-2025 at 14:04:41.
Warm Regards, YES BankYES BANK Ac X1470 debited for INR 4,99,90,000.00 on 16JUL25
16:36.
RTGS:YESBR52025071655852144/BALAJI ENTERPRISES-. Bal
INR 6,11,111.00.
Not U? SMS BLKMB <CustID> to 9840909000
50RTGS from YES BANK A/C with Ref No
YESBR52025071655852144 of INR 49,990,000.00 has been
credited to the beneficiary acct XXXXXXX8235 on 16-07-2025 at
16:37:10. Warm Regards, YES Bank.
We say that on the next day on 17th July it was informed by Mr.
Roshan to us through Whatsapp call that our work has been
started and agreement will be executed in due course after
processing of stamp duty amount and accruing the stamps.
We say that the on morning of 18th July it came to an shocking
message to us when we got the news in the newspaper about
arrest of Mr. Roshan being arrested on 17th night from Saldhana
compound residence in the case of cheating and fraud with
various businessmen and immediately it was realized that his
full name is ROSHAN SALDANHA and we have been duped and
cheated by the said person so we immediately informed our
banker (YES BANK) to which payment was made regarding the
said illegality.
We asked Ms. Vaishali Dixit for contact number of Mr. Lalit to
know the situation after the arrest of Mr. Roshan Saldanha, we
got Lalit’s number 84510 71871, contacted him over whatsapp
for which he is saying that he will solve the matter.
Hence we say that we have been conned and cheated by this
entire racket of providing the loan and an amount of Rs 5 Crores
have been duped under the disguise of the providing the loan
and procurement of stamp duty and have lost the amount of Rs.
5 Crores through the fraud and cheating played upon us and
have became the victim of said fraud which required to be
investigated and help us to get back our hard earned money
that is lost by us due to said fraudulent and cheating played
upon us by Mr. Roshan Saldanha and his team.”
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12846 OF 2025
“ಇವ ೆ,
ೕ ೕ ಕರು,
ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
51
ತ ದುಗ .
ಂದ, ಅ ೈಕು ಾ!. "ೆ ತಂ#ೆ ಕೃಷ&' ಕು(), ವಯಸು,ಃ 51 ವಷ , ಆ!/ಎ ಕ0ಾ10ೆ2 3ೌ , 5ಾಮಪ8ರಂ, 9ೕ "ಾ: ೕ ), ಅಲಪ8<ಳ >0ೆ?, "ೇರಳ-690 508 @AೈB ಸಂCೆD: 9495858585/7012885855 ಾನD5ೆ,
Eಷಯ: 1) 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ 2) Kಾ¦ß Hಾ0ಾIJಾ 3) L ೕ Mಾಸ 5ೆNI @ “ೋOಾ
Jೋಟು ಚಂದ 4) R.R 3ೆ ೆI ರವರು ನನ ೆ Hಾ0ಾ “ೋಡುವ8#ಾT ನಂUV
ನ Wಂದ 50 ಲ ರೂXಾ ಹಣ ಪ[ೆದು @ೕಸ ಾNದು\ “ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ
“ೈ ೊಳ]ಲು ದೂರು
*****
Jಾನು _ೕಲ`ಂಡ Eaಾಸದ ? ನನW ಕುಂಟುಂಬ#ೊಂc ೆ MಾಸMಾTದು\, ಮJೆಯ ಒaಾಂಗಣ”ೆ`
ಸಂಬಂeVದ R ೋಪಕರಣಗಳನುW ತfಾ ಸುವ ವDವ3ಾರ ಾN”ೊಂNರುgೆhೕJೆ. ನನW ವDವ3ಾರದ
ಅiವೃcj ಾT ನನ ೆ Hಾಲದ ಅವಶDಕgೆ ದು\, Jಾನು ನಮk 5ಾಜDದ ಅ0ೆR< >0ೆ?ಯ ಕುಲಂ ಾ ಮದ
ಮನು (Aೆಂಗಳm ನ MಾV nೕ’ ನಂ:9645096933) ಎಂಬುವವರನುW Aೇ(fಾT ನನ ೆ Hಾಲದ
ಅವಶDಕgೆ ರುವ8ದರ ಬ ೆo 3ೇಳ#ೆ\ೕನು. ಆದ\ ಂದ ಮನು ತನ ೆ Aೆಂಗಳm ನ MಾVfಾದ p ೕq
XೌB ಎಂಬುವವರು ಪ ಚಯEದು\, ಅವರನುW Aೇ( ಾNಸುವ8#ಾT 1rV 2023 Jೇ Hಾ ನ _ೕ
1ಂಗrನ ಒಂದು cನ ನನ ೆ ಮನು ರವರು p ೕq XೌB ರವರನುW Aೇ( ಾNVದರು. ಅವ ೆ ನನ ೆ
0ೋ’ ಅವಶDಕgೆ ರುವ8ದರ ಬ ೆo 1rV#ೆನು ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ ಎಂಬುವವರು
ಪ ಚಯEದು\, ಸದ ಯವರು ಮ ೆ 0ೋ’ “ೊಡುgಾh5ೆ. Jಾನು ಮkನುW ತ ದುಗ “ೆ`
ಕ5ೆದು”ೊಂಡು 3ೋಗುgೆhೕJೆ ಎಂದು 1rVದರು.
ನಂತರ cJಾಂಕ: 15.06.2023 ರಂದು ನನ ೆ ತ ದುಗ ನಗರದ “ೋOೆರHೆhಯ ?ನ L ೕ
Hಾ 0ೋ’ ಕನ,0ೆs , ಆpೕ ೆ ಕ5ೆದು”ೊಂಡು 3ೋTದು\, ಕtೇ ಯ ? ಮೂವರು ಕುr1hದ\ರು.
ಅದರ ? ಒಬuರೂ Jಾನು 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ L ೕ Hಾ 0ೋ’ ಕನ,0ೆ ,ಯ ಾDJೆ>ಂv [ೈ5ೆಕ)!,
ಇJೊWಬuರೂ Jಾನು R.R 3ೆ ೆI L ೕ Hಾ ಕನ,0ೆ ,ಯ ೕಗB ಅ[ೆsೖಸ! ಎಂದು ಪ ಚ V”ೊಂಡು
R.R 3ೆ ೆIರವರು ನನ ೆ ತಮk EV(ಂv “ಾ: ಅನುW “ೊಟ)ರು. _ೕಲ`ಂಡ ಇಬuರೂ ಮgೊhಬu
52
ವD9hಯನುW ಪ ಚ V ಇವರು L ೕ Mಾಸ 5ೆNI ಎಂದು ಇವರು ನಮk Aಾ ಮತುh 0ೋ’ ಮಂಜೂರು
ಾಡುವವರು ಎಂದು 1rV 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾI’ ನು ಢ¦ß Hಾ0ಾI’ _ೕಡಂರವರು ಮ ೆ 0ೋ’
ೕಡುವ ಬ ೆo ಧ ಸುgಾh5ೆ 3ಾಗೂ 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ ರವರು ನನ ೆ Jಾವ8 ಮ ೆ 0ೋ’
“ೊಡುgೆhೕMೆ ಆದ5ೆ ೕವ8 AಾDಂz Cಾgೆ ೆ ಹಣ ವ ಾ Vದ5ೆ 6% ಬNI ಆಗುತh#ೆ. ನಗದು ರೂಪದ ?
Aೇ”ಾದ5ೆ 3% ಬNIfಾಗುತh#ೆ ಎಂದು 3ೇrದರು ಆಗ Jಾನು AಾDಂz ಮೂಲಕ ವ ಾ ವ ೆ ಾN
ಎಂದು 3ೇr Mಾಪಸು, 3ೋ#ೇನು.
ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ 2023 ರ ಜೂ’ 1ಂಗrನ ? R.R 3ೆ ೆI & 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ ಇಬuರೂ
nೕ’ ಾN ಮ ೆ 25 “ೋ( 0ೋ’ ಮಂಜೂ5ಾT#ೆ. ೕವ8 AಾDಂ9 ೆ 25 “ೋ( ಹಣ”ೆ` 2 %
Hಾ){ಂ| Xೇಪ!, ೕಗB QèÃ5ೆ’, ೕHೆVಂv Rೕ ಮುಂಗಡMಾT 50 ಲ ರೂXಾ ಗಳನುW
ನಗದು ರೂಪದ ? ಕಟ)Aೇ”ಾಗುತh#ೆ ಎಂದು 3ೇrದ”ೆ` Jಾನು AಾDಂz ೆ ವ ಾ ವ ೆ ಾಡುgೆhೕJೆ ಎಂದು
3ೇr#ೇನು.
ನಂತರ cJಾಂಕ 18.08.2023 ರಂದು 11.00 ಎಎಂ ೆ ತ ದುಗ ನಗರದ “ೋOೆ
ರHೆhಯ ?ನ L ೕ Hಾ 0ೋ’ ಕನ,0ೆ , ಆpೕ ೆ ಬಂದು ನನW “ೇರಳ 5ಾಜDದ ಹ Xಾ<:, HDFC
AಾDಂz Cಾgೆ ಸಂCೆD: 59109495858585 ಂದ L ೕ Hಾ 0ೋ’ ಕನ,0ೆ , ತ ದುಗ ದ IDBI
AಾDಂPÀß IFSC Code:IBKL0001241 ೆ RTGS £ÀA. HDFCR52023081880786577 gÀ
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ 27,00,000/-( ಇಪ<gೆhೕಳ} ಲ ) ರೂXಾ ಗಳನುW ವ ಾ ವ ೆ ಾN, 23,00,000/-(
ಇಪ<ತೂhರು ಲ ) ರೂXಾ ಗಳನುW ನಗದು ರೂಪದ ? ೕNದು\ 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ, R.R 3ೆ ೆI &
L ೕ Mಾಸ 5ೆNI ಮೂವರು ಎ~V”ೊಂಡು. 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ ರವರು ಭದ gೆ ಾT ನನW ಸ€ ಇರುವ
“ೇರಳ 5ಾಜDದ ನಂTಕು ಲನಗರದ South Indian Bank : •ಾCೆಯ Cಾgೆ ಸಂCೆD
0055053000105833 AiÀÄ ZÉPï £ÀA. 1037616 jAzÀ 1037620 ರವ5ೆTನ tೆz ಗಳನುW
ಪ[ೆದು”ೊಂಡು 01.00 Rಎಂ ಗಂOೆ ೆ ನನ ೆ ಕಳ}€Vದರು.
ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ 0ೋ’ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆಗ#ೆ ಇದು\ದ\ ಂದ Jಾನು 5ೋಶ’ Hಾ0ಾI’ 3ಾಗೂ
R.R 3ೆ ೆIರವ ೆ nೕ’ ಾNದರು ನನW nೕ’ “ಾB Vsೕಕ ಸ ಲ?. 3ಾ ಾT Jಾನು ಮತುh p |
XೌB ಅವರು 5ೋಷ’ Hಾ0ಾIJಾ, “ೋOೆ Jೋ‚ ಚಂದ •ೇಖ! ಮತುh R3ೆ ೆI ಅವರನುW.R.
ತ ದುಗ “ೆ` ಬಂದು ಾಡಲು ಹಲMಾರು Aಾ Aೇ( ಾNದರು ಅವರು ಇವತುh 0ೋ’ ಆಗುತh#ೆ
Jಾaೆ 0ೋ’ ಆಗುತh#ೆ ಎಂದು 3ೇಳ}1hದ\ರು.
cJಾಂಕ:04.07.2025 ರಂದು Jಾನು 3ಾಗೂ p | XೌB ರವರು ಮಂಗಳm ನ 5ೋಶ’
Hಾ0ಾIJಾ ರವರ ಮJೆ ೆ 3ೋ#ಾಗ ಅ ?ದ\ವರು ನಮ ೆ ಮJೆಯ ಒಳ ೆ Uಟು)”ೊಳ#ೆ ಅ ?ಂದ MಾXಾಸು
ಕಳ}€Vದರು.
53
ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ:18.07.2025 ರಂದು . ಯ ೋಶ ಾ ಾ ಾರವರನು
ಮಂಗಳ ನ ೕಸರು ದಸ”# $ಾ%ದು&, ಮ ೆಯ ‘ೆಲವ) ವಸು”ಗಳನು ಜ¥ÀÄÛ $ಾ%ರು+ಾ” ೆ
ಎಂದು ಬರು.”ತು” ಆಗ .01ತು.
ನನ2ೆ 3ೕಸ $ಾಡುವ ಉ6ೆ&ೕಶ ಂದ ೋ ‘ೊಡುವ)6ಾ# ನಂ78 ನ9 ಂದ 50 ಲ:
ರೂ;ಾ1 ಹಣ ಪ?ೆದು ನನ2ೆ 3ೕಸ $ಾ%ದ 1) ೋಶ ಾ ಾ ಾ 2) @ಾ¦ß ಾ ಾ ಾ 3)
ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% @ ‘ೋDಾ ೋಟು ಚಂದB 4) G.G Hೆ2ೆ ರವರ ರುದI ‘ಾನೂನು ೕತJ ಕBಮ
ಜರು#ಸಲು ‘ೋ ಈ ನ ತಡCಾ# LಾMೆ2ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು 9ೕ%ರು+ೆ”ೕ ೆ.”
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12864 OF 2025
"ಇವ 2ೆ,
ೕP 9 ೕ:ಕರು
ನಗರ ೕP LಾMೆ
QತBದುಗR.
ಇಂದ
S..ಲT ದU Vೌ B ತಂ6ೆ .ಗMೇX, 42 ವಷR, :.Bಯ ಜ ಾಂಗ, 7 ಂZ ಕನJ: ವೃ.",
Cಾಸ # 66, 'ೆ.ಎ ೈ , ಕುಂಬ] ;ೇDೆ ಮುಖJ ರ ೆ", _ೆಂಗಳ ರು-560002,
3.ನಂ : 9886611155.
$ಾನJ ೇ,
ಷಯ : ೋ 'ೊ%ಸುವ)6ಾ# ನನ ನು ನಂ78, ನನ2ೆ 3ೕಸ $ಾ%ರುವ
1) ೋಷ ಾ ಾ , 2)G.G Hೆ2ೆ, 3)# ೕX 4)?ಾJ¦üßà ಾ ಾನ,
5)ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% @ 'ೋಟ ೋ` ಚಂದBaೇಖ] ಎಂಬುವರ ರುದI
'ಾನೂನು ಕBಮ ಜರು#ಸಲು 'ೋ .
*****
ಾನು bೕಲcಂಡ dಾಸದ ನನ ಸಂ ಾರ6ೊಂ 2ೆ CಾಸCಾ#ದು&, 7 ಂZ ಕ£Àì÷ÖçPÀë
'ೆಲಸ $ಾ%'ೊಂ%ರು+ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನನ 'ೆಲಸದ ಅfವೃ I2ಾ# Hೆಚುgವ hಾ# ನನ2ೆ 6 'ೋ ಹಣದ
54
ಅವಶJಕ+ೆ ಇದು&ದ ಂದ, ಾನು ನನ2ೆ ಪ ಚಯ ದ& ೋ 'ೊ%ಸುವ ಏjೆಂ` 'ೆಲಸ $ಾಡು."ದ&
ಮುರ0,ಎ .8ೕನಪk ಎಂಬುವರನು ಒbm nೇ hಾ# ಎ hಾದರೂ ನನ2ೆ ಾಲ 'ೊ%8 ಎಂದು
'ೇ0'ೊಂ?ಾಗ, ಅವರು 2023 ೇ ಾ ನ ಅ'ೊoೕಬ] .ಂಗ0ನ ನನ2ೆ ೋ $ಾ%8'ೊಡು+ೆ"ೕ ೆ
ಎಂದು Hೇ0ದ&ರು. ಆಗ ಾನು ಅವರ _ಾ§ÄÛ 1)9535332111, 2)9663529292 3_ೈp ನಂಬ]
ಗಳನು ಪ?ೆದು’ೊಂ%6ೆ&ನು. ನನ2ೆ ತು+ಾR# ಹಣ _ೇ’ಾ#ದ& ಂದ ಅ6ೇ .ಂಗ0ನ
ಮುರ0,ಎ .8ೕನಪk ಇವರನು ಪ)ನಃ ಸಂಪrR8 ಾಲದ ಬ2ೆs ನಂ.8’ೊಂ?ಾಗ,
ಮುರ0.ಎ .8ೕನಪk ತನ jೊ+ೆಯ ಒಬt ವJr”ಯನು ಅ6ೇ .ಂಗಳ ನಮm ಮ ೆ2ೆ ಕ ೆದು’ೊಂಡು
ಬಂದು ಇವರ Hೆಸರು # ೕX, ಇವರು _ೆಂಗಳ ನ ಅCೆನೂJ ರ ೆ”ಯ ABೕಸುಬBಹmMೇಶuರ ಸಹ’ಾ ಸಂ ೆv
aಾwೆಯ ‘ೆಲಸ $ಾಡು+ಾ” ೆ ಎಂದು ನನ2ೆ ಪ 18ದರು, ಾನು # ೕX ರವರ 8618065759 ನು
ಪ?ೆದು’ೊಂ?ೆನು. # ೕX ರವರು ‘ೆಲಸ $ಾಡು.”ದ& ಸಹ’ಾ ಸಂ ೆvಯ 6 ‘ೋ ಾಲವನು ‘ೊಡಲು
ಾಧJ ಲ. 3 ‘ೋ $ಾತB ಾಲ ‘ೊಡು+ಾ” ೆ ಎಂದು .08ದ # ೕX _ೇ ೆ _ಾJಂT ಗಳ
Vಾ ಸು+ೆ”ೕ ೆ. ಇಲCೇ ತನ2ೆ ಪ ಚಯ ದ& QತBದುಗRದ ಸುಮಂಗಲ ಎಂಬುವರು wಾಸ# yೈ ಾ z
ಾಲ ‘ೊ%ಸು+ಾ” ೆ ಅವರನು ‘ೇ0 Hೇಳ{+ೆ”ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು .08ದ&ರು. ಒಂ6ೆರಡು ನಗಳ ಬ0ಕ # ೕX
ರವರು ನನ2ೆ ಕ ೆ$ಾ%, _ೇ ೆ hಾವ)6ೇ _ಾJಂT ನ 6 ‘ೋ ಾಲ 8ಗುವ) ಲ, QತBದುಗRದ
ಸುಮಂಗಲ ಅವ 2ೆ |ೕ $ಾ% Vಾ 86ೆ, ಅವರು ೋ ‘ೊ%ಸುವ)6ಾ# .08ರು+ಾ” ೆ.
ಗುರುCಾರ $ಾತB ಅವರ ಕ}ೇ ಓಪ ಇರುತ”ದಂ+ೆ ಮುಂ ನ ಗುರುCಾರ Hೋ2ೋಣ ಬ9 ಎಂದು
ನನ2ೆ .08ದರು. ಅದರಂ+ೆ ಾನು ಒಂದು ಗುರುCಾರದಂದು QತBದುಗR’ೆc ಬಂದು #ೕ ಶರವ 2ೆ
|ೕ $ಾ%6ಾಗ ಅವರು ಾನು ಬರುವ 3ದ ೇ QತBದುಗR’ೆc ಬಂ ರುವ)6ಾ#, 9ೕವ) ‘ೋDೆ ರ ೆ”2ೆ
ಆDೋದ , ಬ9 ಎಂದು .08ದರು. ಅದರಂ+ೆ ಾನು ‘ೋDೆ ರ ೆ”2ೆ Hೋ6ಾಗ, ಉಚgಂ# ಯಲಮm
6ೇವ ಾvನದ ಹ.”ರ # ೕX ರವರು ಸುಮಂಗಲ ಎಂಬುವವರನು ನನ2ೆ ಪ ಚ18ದರು. ನಂತರ
ಸುಮಂಗಲಮm ನಮmನು ಅ6ೇ ರ ೆ”ಯ ರುವ ಮ ೆ•ಂದರ 3 ೇ ಮಹ%2ೆ ಕ ೆದು’ೊಂಡು Hೋದರು.
ಅ ದ& E§âgÀÄ ವJr”ಗಳ{ ನಮmನು ಪ ಚ18’ೊಂಡರು, ಾನು ಅವರ Hೆಸರು ‘ೇ06ಾಗ ಒಬtರು ತನ
Hೆಸರು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ, ಾ1 yೈ ಾನz€ $ಾJ ೇSಂZ ?ೈ ೆಕo] ಾ ೇ ಎಂದು
ಪ ಚ18’ೊಂಡರು. ಮ+ೊ”ಬtರು ತನ Hೆಸರು G. G Hೆ2ೆ ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z ೕಗp ಅ?ೆuೖಸ] ಎಂದು
Hೇ0 8 ಂZ ‘ಾ•R ‘ೊಟುo ಪ ಚ18’ೊಂಡರು.
ನಂತರ ಅವರುಗಳ{ ಇದು ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z ಇ ೋ ‘ೊಡುವವರು ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% ಎಂದು
.08. ನಮm, yೈ ಾ z ಕ?ೆ1ಂದ ಕಮ‚Rಯp 7 ಂZ ಗ02ೆ $ಾತB ೋ ‘ೊಡು+ೆ”ೕCೆ.
ನಮm , 6 ‘ೋ ೋ ‘ೊಡುವ) ಲ. ಕ9ಷƒ 10 ‘ೋ 1ಂದ 100 ‘ೋ ವ ೆ2ೆ ೋ
‘ೊಡು+ೆ”ೕCೆ. 9ಮ2ೆ ಸ „98ದ ೆ, 9ೕವ) ಾಲ’ೆc $ಾDೆsೕR… $ಾ%’ೊಳ†ಲು 9ಮm 7 ಂZ 2ೆ
ಸಂಬಂ‡8ದ 6ಾಖ ಾ.ಗಳನು ತಂದು ‘ೊ%, ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% ಯವರು ಅವ)ಗಳನು ಪ Aೕ 8 ೋ%
ಒಂ6ೆರಡು .ಂಗಳ ೋ ‘ೊಡು+ಾ” ೆ ಎಂದು .08ದರು. Hಾ2ಾ# ಾನು ನಮm ತಂ6ೆಯ
55Hೆಸ ನ ರುವ _ೆಂಗಳ ನ, ಕುಂ_ಾರ;ೇDೆ ಮುಖJ ರ ೆ”ಯ ರುವ, ‘ೆಂಚ ಾಯಕನ ೈ ನ ರುವ #
66ರ 7 ಂZ 6ಾಖ ಾ.ಗಳನು Hಾಗೂ 7 ಂZ $ೌಲJದ ಬ2ೆ#ನ 6ಾಖ ಾ.ಗಳನು ‘ೊDೆoನು. ಆಗ
ಅವರು ನನ2ೆ ಒಂದು .ಂಗಳ _ೆಳ2ೆ ೋ ಮಂಜೂರು $ಾ%, ತ:ಣ 9ಮ2ೆ ಕ ೆ $ಾ%
.0ಸು+ೆ”ೕ ೆಂದು Hೇ0 ನನ ನು ಕಳ{ˆ8ದರು.
ಎರಡು .ಂಗಳ{ ಕdೆದ ನಂತರ % ೆಂಬ] ನ ನನ2ೆ G.G. Hೆ2ೆ ಮತು” ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ
ಇಬtರೂ ಕ ೆ$ಾ% ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z 9ಂದ 9ಮ2ೆ ೋ ಮಂಜೂ ಾ#6ೆ. ಾಂಕ: 11-12-2023
ರಂದು ಮ‰ಾJಹ QತBದುಗRದ ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z 2ೆ ಬ9 , ಬರುCಾಗ 9ಮm Hೆಸ ನ ರುವ _ಾJಂT
wಾ+ೆಯ ಸˆ $ಾ%ರುವ 5 wಾ VೆT Hಾdೆಗಳನು ಆ‰ಾ] ‘ಾ•R, ;ಾ ‘ಾ•R, ;ಾP |ೕ`R
ಇದ& ೆ ಅವ)ಗಳ ನಲಕನು Hಾಗೂ 9ೕವ) hಾವ _ಾJಂrನ VೆT 9ೕಡು.” ೋ, ಅ _ಾJಂrನ 9ಮm ಸˆ
ಪ Aೕಲ ಾ ಪತB ತ9 ಎಂದು Hೇ0ದ&ರು. ಆದ& ಂದ ಾಂಕ: 11-12-2023 ರಂದು bೕಲcಂಡ
6ಾಖ ಾ.ಗdೆ ಂ 2ೆ ಾನು QತBದುಗR ನಗರದ ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z 2ೆ ಬಂದು ಾನು ತಂದ
6ಾಖ ಾ.ಗಳನು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ Hಾಗೂ G.G. Hೆ2ೆ ಇವ 2ೆ ‘ೊDೆoನು. ಆಗ ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ
ಅವ)ಗಳನು ಪ Aೕ 8ದ ನಂತರ ನನ2ೆ hಾವ)6ೋ ಒಂದು ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ತರಹದ ಪತBವನು +ೋ 8,
ಇದರ |ೕDೋ +ೆ2ೆದು’ೊಳ†ಲು ನನ2ೆ .08ದರು. ಈ ತರಹದ 49,000/- ರೂ;ಾ1ಗಳ ಒಂದರಂ+ೆ
ಒಟುo 40 ಇ- ಾoಂ‹ ಪತBಗಳನು , 1 ೇ ;ಾ R S..ಲT ದU Vೌ B ಎಂದು 2 ೇ ;ಾ R
ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% ಎಂಬ Hೆಸ 2ೆ +ೆ2ೆಸ_ೇಕು. 9ಮ2ೆ 9ೕಡುವ ೋ 10 ‘ೋ ಆ#ರುವ)ದ ಂದ ಅದರ
2% ಹಣದ ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ಪತBಗ02ೆ 19.60.000/-ರೂ Hಾಗೂ B ೆ8ಂZ Vಾ…R ೇ ಒಟುo
20,00,000/- (ಇಪkತು” ಲ:) ನಗದು ಹಣವನು ತಂದು ‘ೊ% ಎಂದು .08ದ&ರು. ಅದರಂ+ೆ ಾನು
20,00,000/- (ಇಪkತು” ಲ:) ನಗದು ಹಣವನು Hೊಂ 8’ೊಂಡು ಾಂಕ : 21-12-2023 ರಂದು
ಸಂjೆ 07-30 ಗಂDೆ2ೆ QತBದುಗR ನಗರದ ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z 2ೆ ಹಣ ‘ೊಡಲು ಬಂ6ಾಗ, ಅ ಾಲುc
ಜನರು ಇದ&ರು, ೋಶ ಾ ಾನ, G.G. Hೆ2ೆ, # ೕX ( ಾ1 yೈ ಾ z ೌಕರ) ಇವರುಗಳ{ ಅ ದ&
4 ೇ ವJr”ಯನು +ೋ 8 ಇವರ Hೆಸರು ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% ಎಂದು ಪ ಚ18ದರು. ನಂತರ ಾನು ತಂ ದ&
20,00,000/- (ಇಪkತು” ಲ:) ನಗದು ಹಣವನು ಅವ 2ೆ ‘ೊDಾoಗ, ಅವ ೆಲರೂ ಎŒ8 ಇಟುo’ೊಂಡು,
ನನ2ೆ 9ೕವ) QತBದುಗR ನಗರದ „ೕ ಉ0ದು’ೊ0† ಾdೆ _ೆ02ೆs ೋ ಮಂಜೂರು ಪತB ೆ%
$ಾಡು+ೆ”ೕCೆ ಎಂದು Hೇ0 ಕಳ{ˆ8ದರು. ಆಗ ಾನು QತBದುಗRದ hಾವ)6ೋ ಾ•• ನ
ಉ0ದು’ೊಂ?ೆನು.
$ಾರ ೇ ನ 22-12-2023 ರಂದು _ೆಳ2ೆs 11-30 ಗಂDೆ ಸಮಯ’ೆc ಾನು ಅವರ ಬ0
Hೋ6ಾಗ, ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ 49.000/- ¸Á«gÀ $ಾಲJದ MlÄÖ 40 ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ +ೆ2ೆಯಲು
‘ಾ ಾವ’ಾಶ _ೇಕು ಎಂದು ನನ2ೆ .08, 1000/-ರೂ $ಾಲJದ ಒಂದು wಾ ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ;ೇಪ] ನು
ನನ2ೆ +ೋ 8ದು&, ಅದರ MEMORANDU OF UNDRESTANDING ಅಂತ ನಮೂದು ಇದು&,
ಸದ wಾ ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ;ೇಪ] bೕ ೆ ನನ ಸˆ ಮತು” JqÀUÉÊ ºÉ¨ÉâlÖ£ÀÄß ಪ?ೆದು’ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ
56
ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಇವರು ನನ2ೆ ಅವರ Hೆಂಡ. ?ಾ¦üß ಾ ಾನ 40 ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ;ೇಪ]ಗಳನು
+ೆ2ೆ8, ೋ 2ೆ ಸಂಬಂ‡8ದ ‘ೆಲಸ $ಾ%, rBಸmP ಹಬt ಮು#ದ ನಂತರ 9ಮm ಮ ೆ2ೆ ಖು6ಾ#
ಬಂದು ;ೇಪ] ಗಳನು 9ೕ% ಆ#Bbಂ` $ಾ%’ೊಡು+ಾ” ೆ ಎಂದು .08 ಅವರ Hೆಂಡ. ?ಾ¦üß
ಾ ಾನ ಇವರ 3_ೈp ನಂಬ] 9483723922 ನು ನನ2ೆ 9ೕ%ದರು. ಾನು Cಾ;ಾP
_ೆಂಗಳ 2ೆ Hೋ6ೆನು. rBಸmP ಹಬt ಮು#ದ ಒಂದು Cಾರದ ಬ0ಕ ಾನು ೋ 2ೆ
ಸಂಬಂ‡8ದಂ+ೆ ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ರವರ 3_ೈp ನಂಬ] 8494945686, G.G. Hೆ2ೆರವರ
3_ೈp ನಂಬ] 8861937597, ?ಾ¦üß ಾ ಾನ ರವರ 3_ೈp ನಂಬ] 9483723922,
ಇವ 2ೆ ಹಲCಾರು _ಾ ಕ ೆ$ಾ%ದರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ಮೂವರ 3_ೈp ನಂಬ] 8u• ಆ• ಆ#ರುತ”6ೆ.
ಾಂಕ : 17-07-2025 ರಂದು ೋಷ ಾ ಾನ ಈತನ bೕ ೆ 3ೕಸ $ಾ%ದ ‘ೇಸುಗಳ{
6ಾಖ ಾ#Cೆ ಎಂದು . .ನೂJP ನ ಬಂ ದ&ನು ಾನು ೋ%ದು&, ನನಗೂ ಸಹ ಇವ ೆಲರೂ ೇ
ಾಲ ‘ೊ%ಸುವ)6ಾ# ಮm ನಂ78 10 ‘ೋ ಾಲ ‘ೊಡಲು 2% ನಂತರ ಇ- ಾoŠಂ‹ ನ
ಅ#Bbಂ` $ಾ%’ೊಡುವ)6ಾ# ನ9 ಂದ 20 ಲ: ಹಣವನು ನಗ6ಾ# ಪ?ೆದು’ೊಂಡು ನನ2ೆ 3ೕಸ
$ಾ%6ಾ& ೆಂದು .01ತು.
ನನ2ೆ 10 ‘ೋ ಾಲವನು ‘ೊಡುವ)6ಾ# ನಂ78 ನ9 ಂದ 20 ಲ: ಹಣವನು ಪ?ೆದು
ಾಲವನು ‘ೊಡ6ೇ, ನ9 ಂದ ಪ?ೆದ ಹಣವನು Cಾ;ಾP ‘ೊಡ6ೇ ನನ2ೆ 3ೕಸ $ಾ%ರುವ
1) ೋಷ ಾ ಾ , 2)G.G Hೆ2ೆ, 3)# ೕX 4)?ಾJ¦üß ಾ ಾನ, 5)ABೕ9Cಾಸ ೆ% @
‘ೋಟ ೋ` ಚಂದBaೇಖ] ರುದI ‘ಾನೂನು ಕBಮ ಜರು#ಸಲು ‘ೋ ಎಂದು ತಡCಾ# ಈ ನ
ಬಂದು ದೂರು 9ೕ%ರು+ೆ”ೕ ೆ.”
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12879 OF 2025
“FROM,
Shiva Krishanamuthy Iyer
s/o A.R.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 62 Years,
Hindu Bramhin caste,
resident of plot no.17
Murthy Bhavan Bunglow,
adjacent to Jai Bharat School,
Ravikiran CHS Ltd, Chera Nagar,
Sagaon, Dombivli-East, Kalyana Taluk,
Thane district,
Maharashtra State. ph: 9930511962.
TO,
57
Station house officer,
town police station,
chitradurga town.
I Mr Shiva Krishanamuthy lyer Aged about 62 Years and
resident of Maharashtra (17 Murthy BhavanBunglow adjacent
to Jai Bharat School, Ravikiran CHS Ltd, Chera Nagar Sagaon,
Dombivli(East) came to Chitradurga in the month of November
2023, December 2023 and on 25th January 2024 to meet
Mr.Rohan Saldanha and Mr.Padma Prasad Hegde having office
in the name of SAI FINANCE H N R building, Fort Road
adjacent to old Government School building, Chitradurga. I
was introduced to them by Mr. Lalit Chavan and Mr.Dinesh
Jaiswal, being the residents of Maharashtra. (A 305, Raj
Apartment, RavikiranCHS Ltd, Chera Nagar, Sagaon, Dombvili
(E), Maharashtra.
The purpose of the meeting was to get a loan of Rs.2.5
crores from Sai Finance for the expansion of the school being
run by Mr. Shiva Krishnamurthy lyer in Maharashtra. Mr. P P
Hegde and Mr. Roshan Saldanha and one person named
Chandrashekhar (well Known and Called by other name called
“Kote Chandranna @ Kotanotu Chandrashekar) had promised
the loan amount and asked Mr. Iyer to pay a security deposit
of Rs.7.5 lakhs in cash as security deposit for getting the said
loan. Mr. Iyer and his son Mr. Saravana Shiva Iyer, aged 29
years gave the amount in the office of M/s. Sai Finance on the
morning of 24th January 2024 at around 1 pm. Mr. Iyer and
Mr. Saravana were put up in Hotel Vaibhava grand,
Turunavuru road, Chitradurga. Mr. Hegde, Chandrashekhar
and Mr. Roshan said that the security deposit would be used to
purchase E stamps worth Rs.7.5 lakhs. Further it is stated that
On 25th January 2024 my son was called to the office of Sai
Finance and compelled him to sign on 15 E-stamp papers
worth Rs.49000/- each and on a blank MOU and forced him to
deliver the three blank cheques. Mr. Hegde, Mr
Chandrashekhar, and Mr. Roshan Saldanha agreed to deliver
the loan amount of Rs.2.5 crores on 29th January 2024 in the
residence of Mr. Iyer in cash.
Till date the loan amount has not been disbursed and
Mr. Hegde, Mr Kotanotu Chandrashekhar and Mr.Roshan
58
Saldanha are not attending the phone calls of Mr. Iyer. On 14th
March 2024 Mr. Iyer visited the office of Sai Finance but
Mr.Hegde, Mr Chandrashekhar, and Mr.Roshan Saldanha
refused to give a firm date for disbursal of the loan. After
considering all the sequence of events Mr. Shiva
Krishnamurthy lyer feels that he and his son have been
cheated and hence I request the Chitradurga police to file a
complaint against 1) Mr.Lalit Chavan 2)Mr.Dinesh Jaiswal 3)
Mr Chandrashekhar 4) Mr.P.P. Hegde and 5) Mr.Roshan
Saldanha under appropriate sections of IPC and proceed
against these accused persons.
The Phone numbers of the 4 accused are:-
1) Mr.LalitChavan-8451071871
2) Mr.DineshJaiswal – 7039010952
3) Mr.P.P.Hegde – 8861937597
4) Mr.RoshanSaldanha – 8494945686
5) Mr.Chandrashekhar @ kotanotu Chandru-9448466114
With reference to the entry in the station register of
Town police station, Chitradurga, Karnataka on Thursday 14 th
March 24 at around 5 pm against 5 persons 1) Mr.Lalit Chavan
2) Mr.Dinesh Jaiswal 3) Kote Chandra shekar, 4) Mr.Padma
Prasad Hegde 5) Mr.Roshan SaldanhaI would like to add the following to the above:
A) From the behaviour of the accused persons in not
returning the E stamp papers and cheques and other
documents received from the complainant relating to the loan,
resulting to cheating and deception.
So I request the Chitradurga police to investigate the
matter and take appropriate action against the accused
persons with the seriousness it deserves.”
59
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12887 OF 2025
"ರವ ೆ:
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ
ತ ದುಗ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ತ ದುಗ ೆ.
ಇಂದ:
ಅಜ! "ಾಯು$ ತಂ%ೆ .ಎ. ೊಂಡ,
52 ವಷ , "ಾಯು$ ಜ"ಾಂಗ,
ಯ* ಎ+ೆ,ೕ- ೆಲಸ, 3 0ೕ1-19, 2ೈ4ಾಂ5 6*7,
rd
8ಾ- ನಂ 122 & 123 ಲುಂ9: ಅ;ೆನು<, ಗ =>ೌ@,
+ೇರು ಂಗA ಮಂಡ* ರಂಗ CೆD$ ೆ, Eೈ%ಾ >ಾF,
Gೆಲಂ ಾಣ Cಾಜ<, 500032,
ೕI ನಂ-9030211111, 7718499999.
"ಾನು Jai Ho developers LLP, Hyderabad ಎಂಬ ಯ* ಎ+ೆ,ೕ-
4ಾ ೕಕ”ಾLರುGೆMೕ”ೆ. ನನN ೆಲಸದ ಅPವೃRS ಾL ನನ ೆ 50 ೋT ಹಣದ ಅವಶ<ಕGೆ ಇದುWದ ಂದ,
ನನ ೆ ಪ ಚಯZದW ಅ+ಾ[ ಎಂಬುವರ ಬ@ ಹಣದ ಬ ೆ\ 4ಾತ”ಾಡು]M%ಾWಗ ತ ದುಗ ದ , +ಾ^
_ೈ”ಾI7 ಇ%ೆ ಅದರ ಕD` ಬD$ ೆ ಹಣವನುN +ಾಲ;ಾL ೊಡುGಾMCೆಂತ ನಮ[ +ೆNೕ6ತ
Cಾಮಮೂ] , Eಾಗೂ ಸುCೇಂದ ಎಂಬವರು ]@aದುW :ೕವb Zcಾರ 4ಾD ೊ@d ಎಂತ ]@a%ಾಗ
“ಾನು Cಾಮಮೂ] Eಾಗೂ ಸುCೇಂದ ರವರನುN ಸಂಪಕ a%ಾಗ ಅವರು ತ ದುಗ ದ , +ಾ^
_ೈ”ಾI7 ನ ಕD` ಬDM ೆ ಹಣವನುN ೊಡುGಾMCೆಂತ ]@a 23.06.2023 ತ ದುಗ ೆe
ಕCೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಅ ೋfೆ ರ+ೆMಯ ರುವ ಉಚ=ಂL ಯಲಮ[ %ೇವ+ಾhನದ ಹ]Mರ ಮೂರ”ೆ
ಅಂತaMನ ಮ”ೆ ೆ ಕCೆದು ೊಂಡು EೋL ಅ ದW +ಾ^ _ೈ”ಾI7 ಕiೇ ೆ ಕCೆದು ೊಂಡು Eೋದರು.
ಅ ಮೂರು ಜನರನುN Gೋ aದರು. ಅದರ ಒಬkರು CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$ನ, +ಾ^ _ೈ”ಾI7 ನ
4ಾ<“ೇ ಂl 2ೈCೆಕ,1 ಎಂದು ಪ ಚ^a ೊಂಡರು. ಮGೊMಬkರು ತನN Eೆಸರು m.m.Eೆ ೆ$, +ಾ^
_ೈ”ಾI7, ೕಗ* ಅ2ೆnೖಸ1 ಎಂದು Eೇ@ ZaTಂl ಾ5 ೊಟು, ಪ ಚ^a ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ
ಮGೊMಬkರು +ಾ^ _ೈ”ಾI7 ನ 4ಾ ೕಕರು ಇವCೇ ಇ ೋI ೊಡುವವರು p ೕ:;ಾಸCೆD$ @
ೋfಾ “ೋ- ಚಂದ qೇಖ1 ಎಂತ Eೇ@ ಪ ಚ^aದರು, ಆಗ p ೕ:;ಾಸCೆD$ಯವರು :ಮ ೆ ಎಷು,
ೋI >ೇಕು ಎಂತ ]@aದರು, ಆ ೆ “ಾನು 50 ೋT >ೇಕು ಎಂತ ]@a%ೆ ಆಗ 100 ೋT
Gೆ ೆದು ೊ@d, ೊಡುGೆMೕ;ೆ ಎಂತ ]@aದರು “ಾವb >ೇಡ 50 ೋT +ಾಕು ಎಂತ ]@a%ೆವb, ಆಗ
CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$I ರವರು ೕಜt, Dmಆ1 Eಾಗೂ ೕಗ* ಒm:ಯನುN ಒಂದು ವಷ ದ >ಾ<ಂt
60
+ೆ,ೕ- `ಂ-, ಐದು ೕfೋ, ೆ.;ೈ.a ಪb* 2ಾಕು<`ಂ-, +ೈI 4ಾDರುವ ಐದು vಾ cೆt
ಗಳ >ಾ<ಂt ಸT m ೆ-, ಒI +ೆ- ೊ ೆfಾ * 2ಾಕು<`ಂ-, +ಾ,wಂx ಡೂ<T ಅ4ೌಂ- ಗಳನುN
Cೆ2ೆ 4ಾD ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ೕI 4ಾD ಎಂತ CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$I ರವರು 8494945686 “ೆ ೕI
ನಂಬ1 ೊಟು, ೕI 4ಾಡುವbದ ೆe ]@aದರು. “ಾನು ಸ ಎಂತ ಒmy ೊಂಡು Eೋ%ೆನು.
ಒಂದು Rನ CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$I ರವರು ೕI 4ಾD “ಾವb :ಮ[ +ೈ- “ೋಡುವbದ ಾeL
ನಮ[ aಬkಂRಯವರು ಕಳ 6ಸ>ೇಕು :ೕವb ಬಂದು 2ಾಕೂ<`ಂ- +ಾ,wಂx ಡೂ<T mೕ ಆL
24,98,000/- ಹಣವನುN ೊಡ>ೇ ೆಂದು ]@a%ಾಗ “ಾವb R”ಾಂಕ:09.09.2023 ರಂದು
ತ ದುಗ ೆe ಬಂದು ನಗ%ಾಗ 24,98,000/- ಹಣವನುN ೊT,ರುGೆMೕ;ೆ.
ನಂತರ 4ಾರ”ೇ R”ಾಂಕ:15.09.2023 ರಂದು CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$I ರವರು ೕI 4ಾD
2ಾಕು<`ಂ- ತಂದು ೋD :ಮ ೆ 50 ೋT ೋI ೊಡುವbದ ೆe p ೕ:;ಾಸCೆD$ರವರು
ಒmy ೊಂDರುGಾMCೆಂತ ]@aದರು. Eಾಗೂ CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$ನ ರವರ Eೆಂಡ]{ಾದ 2ಾ<¦üß CೋಷI
+ಾ ಾ$I ರವರು ಸಹ 9483723922 “ೇ ೕI ನಂಬ :ಮದ ೕI 4ಾD :ೕವb >ೇಗ ಬಂದು
+ಾ,wಂx mೕ ನುN ಕT, ೋI ಆಗುತM%ೆ ಎಂತ ]@aದರು. ಅದರಂGೆ R”ಾಂಕ: 20-10-2023
ರಂದು ಮ|ಾ<ಹN 1.00 ಗಂfೆ ೆ +ಾ^ ತ ದುಗ ದ +ಾ^ _ೈ”ಾI7 ೆ ಬಂದು ಆಗ ನನN
Eೆಸ ನ ರುವ >ಾ<ಂt vಾGೆಯ ಸ6 4ಾDರುವ 5 vಾ cೆt Eಾ}ೆಗಳನುN, ಆ|ಾ1 ಾ5 , 8ಾI
ಾ5 , ಐದು 8ಾ 0ೕ- , ೕಜt, Dmಆ1 Eಾಗೂ ೕಗ* ಒm:ಯನುN ಒಂದು ವಷ ದ
>ಾ<ಂt +ೆ,ೕ- `ಂ-, 2ೆ~Zಂl ೈ+ೆI7, 8ಾ ೕ- •ೆCಾt7, ೆ.;ೈ.a ಪb* 2ಾಕು<`ಂ-,
ಒಂದು ವಷ ದ >ಾ<ಂt +ೆ,ೕ- `ಂ- ಗಳನುN ೊfೆ,ವb. ನಂತರ :ಮ[ ೋI ಆL%ೆ :ೕವb +ಾ,ಂx
ಡೂ<T{ಾL ಇ%ೇ Rನ Beneficiary Sri sai consultant IDFC First Bank, IFSC
code IDFB0080992 “ೇ >ಾ<ಂt vಾGೆ ೆ ಒಟು, 1,00,00,000/-(ಒಂದು ೋT) ಕಟ,>ೇ ೆಂದು
]@aದರು ಆಗ ನಮ[ ಅ ೌಂfೆಂ- ರವ ೆ ]@a%ಾಗ Eೈದ >ಾF ನ pಲy 6*7 ೊಂಡಪb1 >ಾ ಂ€
ICIC >ಾ<ಂ•ನ 424505000454 “ೇ ಅ ೌಂ- :ಂದ
1] RTGS Ref:ICICR42023102000525753- Rs25,00,000/-,
2] RTGS Ref:ICICR42023102000527143- Rs25,00,000/-,
3] RTGS Ref:ICICR42023102000527362- Rs25,00,000/-,
4] RTGS Ref:ICICR42023102000527963- Rs25,00,000/-,
ರ ಒಟು, 1,00,00,000/- ರೂಗಳನುN ಕಳ 6aದರು. ನಂತರ ಅ ಂದ ಇ%ೇ ಮೂರು
ಜನಗಳ “ಾ}ೆ :ಮ ೆ 50 ೋT ಹಣ :ಮ[ ಅ ೌಂ- ೆ 9ೕಳ ತM%ೆ EೋL ಎಂತ ]@ಸದರು. “ಾನು
61
ಎರಡು Rನ ತ ದುಗ ದ ‚ೕ ಇ%ೆWೕನು ನಂತರ ೋI ಆಗುವbದು ಎರಡು Rನ ೇ- ಆಗುತM%ೆ :ೕವb
Eೈದ >ಾR ೆ EೋL “ಾ;ೇ ಅ ೆ ೋI ಹಣವನುN Gೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ೊಡುGೆMೕ;ೆಂತ
]@aದರು. “ಾನು Eೈದ >ಾR ೆ Eೋ%ೆನು, ಎರಡು Rನ 9ಟು, CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$ನ ರವರ ƒ>ೈ*
ನಂಬ1 8494945686, m.m. Eೆ ೆ$ರವರ ƒ>ೈ* ನಂಬ1 8861937597, 2ಾ<¦üß +ಾ ಾ$ನ ರವರ
ƒ>ೈ* ನಂಬ1 9483723922, ನಂಬ1 ಗ@ ೆ ಹಲ;ಾರು >ಾ ಕCೆ4ಾDದರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ಮೂವರ
ƒ>ೈ* ನಂಬ1 an€ ಆ… ಆLರುತM%ೆ. R”ಾಂಕ : 17-07-2025 ರಂದು CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$ನ ಈತನ
`ೕ ೆ ƒೕಸ 4ಾDದ ೇಸುಗಳ %ಾಖ ಾL;ೆ ಎಂದು T.Z.ನೂ< ನ ಬಂRದWನುN “ಾನು “ೋDದುW,
ನನಗೂ ಸಹ ಇವCೆಲರೂ +ೇ +ಾಲ ೊDಸುವb%ಾL ನಂ9a 50 ೋT +ಾಲ ೊಡಲು 2% ನಂತರ
ಇ-+ಾ,ಂx ನ ಅL `ಂ- 4ಾD ೊಡುವb%ಾL ನ:Nಂದ 1,24,98,000/- ಹಣವನುN ನಗ%ಾL
ಪ2ೆದು ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ƒೕಸ 4ಾD%ಾWCೆಂದು ]@^ತು.
ನನ ೆ 50 ೋT +ಾಲವನುN ೊಡುವb%ಾL ನಂ9a ನ:Nಂದ 1,24,98,000/- ಹಣವನುN
ಪ2ೆದು +ಾಲವನುN ೊಡ%ೇ ೊಡ%ೇ, ನ:Nಂದ ಪ2ೆದ ಹಣವನುN ;ಾ8ಾ ೊಡ%ೇ ನನ ೆ ƒೕಸ
4ಾDರುವ 1)CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$I, 2 mm Eೆ ೆ$, 3) p ೕ:;ಾಸ CೆD$ @ ೋಟ”ೋ- ಚಂದ qೇಖ1,
4] 2ಾ<¦üß CೋಷI +ಾ ಾ$ನ ZರುದS ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರುLಸಲು ೋ ಎಂದು ತಡ;ಾL ಬಂದು
ದೂರು :ೕDರುGೆMೕ”ೆ.”
The afore-quoted crimes are registered by different
complainants, but the accused persons remain the same. Likewise,
all the complainants were cheated and lured into parting with
money on the pretext of granting loans amounting to several crores
of rupees at minimum interest rates at 4% to 6% p.a. The
complaints afore-quoted in all these cases would clearly reveal a
design made by the accused to hoodwink the complainants. In
every case, the complainants are lured into transactions, money is
transferred and nothing comes about. The chart showing the
62
number of first information reports registered against the petitioner
/ s in all the petitions, is as follows:
THE CHART SHOWING NUMBER OF FIR’S REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS
63
64
9. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.10798/2025
and 10880/2025 interdicts the investigation in crime Nos.30/2025
and 22/2025 respectively, and following suit of crimes that are
registered against these petitioners, are also interdicted.
10. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the matter which is purely money
transaction is rendered a colour of crime and the complainants
ought to have resorted to filing of civil suits against these
petitioners for recovery of money. The said submission is noted
only to be repelled. It is trite that a particular transaction can give
rise to registration of two proceedings, one the civil proceedings
and the other the criminal culpability. The criminal culpability in the
cases are writ large albeit, prima facie. It is in such circumstances
the Apex Court has held that civil and criminal proceedings can go
on simultaneously.
11. The Apex Court in the case of ROCKY v. STATE OF
TELANGANA1 has held as follows:
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713
65“…. ….. ….
24. The appellant’s core contention, that the
dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage.
Although courts must guard against giving criminal
colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the
existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal
prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings
may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both.”
11.1. Again, the Apex Court in the case of ANURAG
BHATNAGAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2 has held as follows:
“…. ….. ….
45. The allegations in the application moved under
Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof
reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of
MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and
deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS
has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false
promise which was legally impossible to be carried out.
The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of
making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any
criminal action as no criminality is attached to it.
However, there are elements of inducement, criminal
conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from
the allegations made in the application and the
complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of
an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made
out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason
that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or
may not be having any criminality attached to it.
46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh,
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514
66
that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be
exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this
connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy
Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law
was well settled that the courts would not thwart any
investigation or that the courts should be very slow in
interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare
cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that
the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the
harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of
power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint which have to be examined only after the
evidence is collected.
47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or
allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid
MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs
lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those
conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS
to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held
that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has
been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot
be permitted to turn around and allege that such breach
of conditions would be of pure civil nature.
48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do
not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes
involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon
by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been
submitted.”
11.2. In the case of KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S.
REDDY3 the Apex Court has held as follows:
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428
67“…. …. ….
19. We now come to the issue of bar against
prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We
hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if
the offences punishable under criminal law are made out
against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel
Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial
precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K.
Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3, this Court has reviewed its
precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph
from the above judgment is extracted below:
“8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the
very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as
well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is
availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in
motion the proceedings in criminal law.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court summed
up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
“21. … There are a large number of cases
where criminal law and civil law can run side by side.
The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but
clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their
content and consequence. The object of the criminal
law is to punish an offender who commits an offence
against a person, property or the State for which the
accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his
liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not,
however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the
wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an
anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available,
a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types
of actions are quite different in content, scope and import.
It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the
husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property
of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar
prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients
of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that
because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the
custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken
as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real
intent of the law.”
68
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi
Agarwal v. State of W.B.,
“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to
the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
appellant against the respondents. We are also not
impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was
pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified
to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the
basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with
in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil
action in a different court even though higher in status and
authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the
proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court
in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal
proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it
crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the
same subject matter, involving the same parties is no
justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima
facie case exists against the accused persons. In present
case certainly such prima facie case exists against the
respondents. Considering the long chain of events from
creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.
Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and
grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of
compensation award among the respondents is sufficient
to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to
reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further,
the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on
revelation of the above chain of events further affirms
the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest
that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the
appellant.”
69
11.3. Later, in the case of PUNIT BERIWALA v. STATE
(NCT OF DELHI)4 the Apex Court holds as follows:
“… …. ….
MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS A
BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil
proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to
hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court
in various judgments, has held that simply because there
is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not
by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is
the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal
proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the
process of the court. This Court is of the view that
because the offence was committed during a commercial
transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the
complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if
necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine
Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun
Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns
Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686]”.
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in ROCKY‘s case supra reaffirmed the settled
principle, that a mere availability of a civil remedy does not by itself
eclipse the jurisdiction of the criminal law, where the allegations on
their face disclose essential ingredients of a recognizable offence. In
the said matter, the allegations levelled were invoking Sections
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 983
70
406, 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. Upon a careful and nuanced
examination of the factual matrix, the Apex Court deemed it
appropriate to interdict the prosecution, only insofar as the
offence under Section 406 of the IPC was concerned, while
allowing the remaining charges to stand and the criminal
trial to proceed. This course was adopted upon Court’s
satisfaction, that notwithstanding the presence of civil
elements, the controversy could not be characterized as one
of a purely civil complexion.
11.4. In ANURAG BHATNAGAR‘s case supra, the Apex Court
once again declined to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings, noting that the memorandum of understanding
between the parties was not a mere commercial arrangement
simpliciter, but one imbued with allegations of inducement and
criminal breach of trust, as borne out from the averments contained
in the complaint. The Court held that the allegations, if taken
to its face value, were sufficient to constitute the
commission of a criminal offence and therefore, warranted
adjudication through the rigours of a criminal trial.
71
11.5. In KATHYAYINI’s case supra, where civil suits
involving identical parties arising out of the same
transaction were admittedly pending, the Apex Court held
that pendency of civil proceedings cannot be employed as a
shield to thwart criminal prosecution. The Court underscored
that where the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the
accused, the continuance of criminal proceedings is neither
impermissible nor an abuse of the process, notwithstanding the
existence of parallel civil litigation between the same parties.
11.6. Echoing this well entrenched jurisprudence, the
Apex Court in PUNIT BERIWALA supra categorically held that
mere institution of civil proceedings does not operate as a
legal embargo upon the investigation or prosecution of a
cognizable criminal offence. The Court, thus, reinforced the
salutary principle that civil and criminal remedies though
they may arise from the same set of facts, operate in distinct
spheres and pursue fundamentally different objectives, a
caveat, it would depend on facts obtaining in each of the cases.
72
12. The matter is still at the stage of crime. Even before the
ink on the crime could dry, the accused are before this Court calling
in question the crimes so registered on the afore-quoted offences
and the criminal law being set into motion for the purpose of
recovery of money. It is by now a too well settled principle of law
that the FIR is not of offence, what is alleged is to be investigated
into and the investigation must ensue. The Apex Court in the case
of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA5, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.”
5
(2021) 19 SCC 401
73
12.1. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH v. KUNWAR SINGH6, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are
of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the
merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the
respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute.
This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High
Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is
required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to
observe due care and responsibility. There are specific
allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been
committed in the course of the work of the ‘Janani Mobility
Express’ under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage,
the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in
the manner in which the trial court would do in the
course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In
doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled
limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of
the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not
expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter
involving financial irregularities in the course of the
administration of a public scheme. A final report has been
submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation.”
12.2. In the case of SOMJEET MALLICK v. STATE OF
JHARKHAND,7 has held as follows:
6
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668
7
(2024) 10 SCC 527
74“…. …. ….
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the
impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of
deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the
case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the
allegations in the FIR or the police report or the
complaint, including the materials collected during
investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be
taken at their face value so as to determine whether a
prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against
the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The
correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this
stage.
16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute
provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients.
Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be
inferred from the act in question as well as the
surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused.
As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused,
despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed
to pay hire charges for months together, while making
false promises for its payment, a prima facie case,
reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the
accused, is made out which may require investigation. In
such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very
inception, it would be nothing short of an act which
thwarts a legitimate investigation.
17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of
all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR
discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to
be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but
the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find
out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has
been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not
required to ascertain as to which specific offence has
been committed.
18. It is only after investigation, at the time of
framing charge, when materials collected during
75
investigation are before the court, the court has to draw
an opinion as to for commission of which offence the
accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court
may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges
a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if
supported by materials, would disclose commission of a
cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted
by quashing the FIR.
19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not
become infructuous on submission of a police report
under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has
been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the
investigation, the court must apply its mind to the
materials submitted in support of the police report before
taking a call whether the FIR and consequential
proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the
FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest
conduct of the accused.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
If the complaints quoted hereinabove are considered on the
bedrock of the elucidation of the Apex Court in the judgments noted
hereinabove what would unmistakably emerge is, the matter
requires investigation in the least. The accused are said to have
hoodwinked several people after luring them into respective
transactions. Therefore, there can be no question of interdicting
the investigation in such cases. The projection of the learned senior
counsel that it is purely a civil transaction and there is no nexus
between the amounts deposited into the accounts to which the
76
petitioners/accused have no nexus, are all matter of investigation
as it is not one case or one complainant, there are 11 complaints by
different complainants against the same accused. In the seriously
disputes questions of fact if this Court would interfere, it would run
foul of plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court all of
which are noted hereinabove.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these
petitions, the petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
